Score

From ErfWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Complexity versus Single dimension: Pet peeves.)
(Complexity versus Single dimension: Is the word equivocate used properly here?)
Line 20: Line 20:
===Complexity versus Single dimension===
===Complexity versus Single dimension===
-
A more abstract aspect of the debate is if a person's "goodness" can actually be reduced to a single dimension. If it can then one with enough knowledge (i.e. God) can equivocate between all qualities. Even if you counted multiple things (like both deeds and faith) and were able to add them that would be one dimension.  The compexity argument is that some things are in[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparability comparable] and judgment must be more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#Field_structure complex] then that.  
+
A more abstract aspect of the debate is if a person's "goodness" can actually be reduced to a single dimension. If it can, then one with enough knowledge (i.e. God), can equivocate between all qualities. Even if you counted multiple things (like both deeds and faith) and were able to add them, that would be one dimension.  The complexity argument is that some things are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparability incomparable] and judgment must be more [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number#Field_structure complex] then that.  
For excessively mathematical discussion of foundation of such ideas, see Wikipedia discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poset Poset] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order Total order] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation relation]ships. To blow a '''''lot''''' of [[shmucker]]s on a treatment that is furthermore agonizingly thorough and mathematically rigorous, see [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198531923 Dunn and Hardegree's "Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic"].
For excessively mathematical discussion of foundation of such ideas, see Wikipedia discussion of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poset Poset] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order Total order] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_relation relation]ships. To blow a '''''lot''''' of [[shmucker]]s on a treatment that is furthermore agonizingly thorough and mathematically rigorous, see [http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198531923 Dunn and Hardegree's "Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic"].

Revision as of 14:05, 16 September 2011

Contents

Proposed Canon

A unit's score is analogous to the religious concept of Karma and homologous to a player's score in a game. A unit accumulates a higher score through the actions of their life. The existence, importance, and sources of a unit's score seem to be matter of great debate and disagreement.

Speculation

Sources of score

Goodness: How good and loyal a unit is in life.

Greatness: How great or accomplished a unit is.

Real World References

Games

In games performance can be characterized by a single dimensional score. A higher score is defined to be more desirable. Using game theory this principle can be extended to any activity with well defined, non-conflicting goals.

Religion

Some of the most major debates in christian theology have been over what people are judged by.

Faith versus Deeds

The more emotional disagreements have been between whether a person's faith, deeds, or both are essential. More extreme points of view are characterized by the quotes "Faith without deeds is death", and "Your deeds are as dust."

Complexity versus Single dimension

A more abstract aspect of the debate is if a person's "goodness" can actually be reduced to a single dimension. If it can, then one with enough knowledge (i.e. God), can equivocate between all qualities. Even if you counted multiple things (like both deeds and faith) and were able to add them, that would be one dimension. The complexity argument is that some things are incomparable and judgment must be more complex then that.

For excessively mathematical discussion of foundation of such ideas, see Wikipedia discussion of Poset and Total order relationships. To blow a lot of shmuckers on a treatment that is furthermore agonizingly thorough and mathematically rigorous, see Dunn and Hardegree's "Algebraic Methods in Philosophical Logic".

Go To:
Personal tools