On Wed, 24 Sep 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we can ratify an in-game fiction ("Goethe has 5 points, even though
>> after ratification we find evidence that e shouldn't have") we can ratify
>> an out-of-game fiction (Goethe was wearing a hat, even though...) if
>> we happen to have a recordkeepor for hat-wearing.
>
> If we have a recordkeepor for hat-wearing, then it's not out-of-game.The CFJ statement didn't say anything about in-game versus out-of-game. My bad, I didn't mean 'in-game' vs 'out-of-game' I meant 'physical and exists if the game doesn't exist' versus 'wholly created by the game.' And for ratification, I don't see a distinction. Ratification is *all* about legal fictions, whether about physical or virtual properties. We can ratify that you had 10 points all we want, but if you reconstruct the paper trail and find that you didn't, then you didn't. It's a "past reality" of the virtual properties. If you like, given that virtual properties are created by email messages, electrons, etc. they are also "physical". For example, I wrote in CFJ 1364: We have an Agoran custom of treating Property as tangible goods, rather than as abstact concepts. For example, we disallow destroying negative properties to create positive properties. It is good to be reminded of this tangibility, as the virtual nature of these tangible goods makes it tempting to explore abstract but tangibly impossible operations. Ratification *creates a legal fiction* but doesn't change the past, whether or not that legal fiction is about physical or virtual things doesn't matter. -Goethe
