Infidel wrote:The overly literal interpretation of "now" definitely seems the most elegant answer.
here because this is shorter mrooze's
So, I'm confused. Is the argument that the scroll is ever changing, and is never "this" scroll for longer than an instant? Hence whenever Parson says "this" scroll the number resets to 0 after first giving him the answer he would expect?
I get the "now" bit, but that only explains most
of what we see on this update.
I don't buy this argument (or the argument that I am referring to as "this" argument, just in case it changes). This seems an odd and confusing thing to hinge an update on. Rob has enough difficulty conveying Erfworld to us without muddying the waters with philosophy. Dubious philosophy even, as I'm pretty sure I'll still be typing on this
computer later today. Also, I'm not sure how this argument jives with:
CharlsNChrg: Tell me the odds that learning what happened to my Archons right now will be worth giving up those calculations in the future.
LordHamster: 4.14 percent.
Should the answer not change as Charlie learning the answer "right now" becomes an impossibility? This question is not entirely
rhetorical since the bracer could have interpreted the question as "tell me for some alternate reality in which Charlie did learn, what would be the likelihood that Charlie would come out ahead?" However, if the bracer did jump those hurdles on its way to an answer, then it evidently is willing to use language to infer intent rather than simply literal meaning, and the intent of Parson's question this time around was pretty clear. That said, proponents of the theory still have the out that we don't know how Parson actually phrased the question to the bracer in the example I (mis)quoted above.
Last edited by effataigus on Thu Jun 30, 2011 9:31 am, edited 239044 times in total.