Trusted
8,509
edits
Line 581: | Line 581: | ||
::(in response to Najawin) Could you elaborate on your concerns? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | ::(in response to Najawin) Could you elaborate on your concerns? {{User:Aquanafrahudy/Sig}} 17:52, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | ||
:::Adapted from the general Sorites the argument would run something like, "We clearly agree that object (1) should be covered, and object (2) is only marginally different from (1). So (2) should be covered. To generalize, if (n+1) is marginally different from (n), we should cover (n+1). We cover (1). Thus, by induction, 'we should cover all things'." The bit in single quotes there is a little problematic, because we don't have '''a clean''' induction step, there isn't just one path to take over induction and a guarantee that there will never be non-marginal differences. | |||
:::But the "dude c'mon" argument is supposed to be a way to step back and look at big picture differences in a way that this argument says we just ''can't''. (In the Sorites as it's generally discussed the argument runs something like "if we have a heap of sand and we remove one grain, it's still a heap, so do this repeatedly, therefore one grain of sand is a heap". "Dude, c'mon.") So I'm just skeptical that we can ever draw these boundaries with any consistency or clarity, even if on the big picture we think it looks ridiculous. Yeah, Doctor Men looks ridiculous. Dimensions in Time looks ridiculous. Curse of Fatal Death looks ridiculous. The Noodle stuff look ridiculous. (I say these things with all the love in the world. You know that's how it looks to outsiders.) But finding clear demarcations to keep them out and other stuff in? I just don't buy it. [[User:Najawin|Najawin]] [[User talk:Najawin|<span title="Talk to me">☎</span>]] 20:11, 5 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== ''LEGO Dimensions'' validity discussion == | == ''LEGO Dimensions'' validity discussion == |