> On Oct 3, 2017, at 11:08 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-10-03 at 22:55 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote: >>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> >>> wrote: >>> "The Date: header of an emailed public message constitutes a self- >>> ratifying claim that the message was sent at the indicated time.” >> >> Far too powerful, given how difficult it can be for some clients to >> display anomalous Date: headers. > > Could lead to some interesting time paradoxes, too (given that changing > the gamestate as though the message were sent at some other time than > the time the message was actually sent could potentially change the > timing at which the message self-ratifies, leading it to maybe self- > ratify multiple times). I'm not sure if there's any situation that's > outright broken, but it's confusing to think about.
This is the exact premise of the game C°ntinuum. It is as confusing as you’d expect. You need graphs of the various timelines under consideration, and the subjective orderings (plural) of how those timelines change in response to player actions. -o
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
