I extremely doubt that your perception isn't flawed for Plato's Cave reasons, but I think you might mean as perception "the information you have currently recorded through your senses/thought/etc"? I meant perception as the mechanisms by the which you obtain that information, not the information obtained itself.
I also think that certainty is required for unambiguity. If you admit that you're not certain, you're admitting that the game is *capable* of being understood in some other way; which falls right into the requirement for ambiguity. Of course, you could feel like you're absolutely certain, but be wrong anyways. On Wednesday, May 10, 2023, nix via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/10/23 15:04, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion wrote: > >> I'd really just need to prove once that one singular point in the >> mechanism >> is ambiguous, to any degree, to add "any ambiguity". It would help to >> define "ambiguous" as "capable of being understood in two or more possible >> senses or ways". >> > > This is already what ambiguous means. I don't understand what you seem to > think it means if not "two or more possible interpretations." > > >> I'll attempt to prove this based on the flaws of our perception (although >> I >> could keep bringing up more and more and I'd only need*one* to qualify): >> We can only perceive the game through our subjective perception, as >> Janet's >> announcement easily outlines. There might be things that we don't know >> about. >> >> Since we don't ever know (and can't ever know) if we're entirely right >> about if the gamepieces, including the ruleset, are what we think they >> are; >> because we're not omniscient or something, there's always some doubt that >> the game could mean something else. Therefore enabling that the game is >> "capable of being understood in two or more possible senses or ways" >> because of that permanent uncertainty that we can't get rid of. >> >> The entire game*might* be some other way, but we just don't know for sure >> if it is or not, making the entire game ambiguous to us to some degree. >> > Just because I could have a flawed perception doesn't mean my perception > *is* flawed. Even if it did, that's a question of doubt and certainty, not > of ambiguity. Me being subjectively uncertain something is true doesn't > mean there's objectively another interpretation. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > >
