Re: Being outside the system from Alex Ferguson on 2000-10-06 (Glorantha Digest Vol 08)

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 23:19:00 +0100 (BST)

Mike Dawson, quoting John Hughes' (inaccurate) statement:
> >>> Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrated that there are always
> >>> some things within a given system that cannot be proven - within a
> >>> given world, we cannot prove nor disprove anything without going
> >>> outside the system - which in most cases is impossible.
>
> For me, the key phrase here is "outside the system".
>
> That's where ALL of us are!

If you're going to make an assertion in terms of the GIT, please define your system. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. (Short version of this discussion: let's not and say we did.) The only difference being 'outside the system' makes here is that we have a) data for more than one cultural viewpoint (just like the God Learners), that we have poorer quality data from each than do its adherents (just like the God Learners), and that, being human and fallible, we're likely to want to 'improve' reality to fit out theories better, by buffing off nasty jaggy edges, to make things a nice smooth fit to a description of "objective reality" achieved from a lowest common denominator application of reductionistic logic (just like the God Learners).

Sorry, post-pub my debating tactics aren't at their most subtle.

> As a GM, each of us has the priviledge and position to decide how each of
> our Gloranthas ACTUALLY, REALLY works.
>
> And we should.

Why? If you're saying, if you want one, define it yourself, fine. But as an imperative, the above is rather silly. I have to decide the ultimate truths of the cosmos before I run "Return to Apple Lane"? Do Me a Favour.

At least we agree that G:tUR isn't a good idea. If for diametrically opposite reasons. I especially dispute the idea that an objectively pre-determined game-world makes for a more evocative experience. For me this seems more limiting than liberating. The first port of evocative call for someone running (say) an Orlanthi campaign should be, what is the Orlanthi truth? Second guessing oneself as to how this might be different from (and sorry Nils, I still think the implication is, inferior to) the objective truth, is a diversion or worse.