On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 15:29 +0200, CuddleBeam wrote: > For the purpose of this message, "Cuddlebeam's Big Language" is a language > with the following rules: > * Cuddlebeam's Big Language is identical to English, with the addition that > the Universe is a pictographic special cipher (in itself). This is the Big > Cipher. > * The Big Cipher, instead of being placed in rows or columns of characters, > is instead left to be where the Universe happens to be. This is the correct > typographic use of such a cipher. > * This special cipher has one meaning. That meaning is that the message > this special cipher is part of is in Cuddlebeam's Big Language. > > Note that perceiving the Universe in its entirety isn't a necessity of the > language, just knowing that the Universe, is, well. There. > > This entire message is in Cuddlebeam's Big Language. (And the Universe is > there. I hope.) > > I submit a CFJ for the following statement: > > "With a proper choice of what language to employ for an Agoran activity > which requires language, any content in the Universe (which is sufficiently > accessible to the intended audience of the use of such language) can be > made relevant to Agora."
This is CFJ 3507. I assign it to grok. > I present the following argument as caller's evidence: > * Agora doesn't favor any particular language, provided that the recipient > can understand it. > * Nomic involves the communication of actions, and language is a necessity > of communication, so concerns of language are relevant (and the rules of > such languages). > * I have an amount of freedom in choosing what language I want to use. > * There is no explicit reason to heavily favor more historically > established languages than others. > * Therefore, my arbitrarily chosen (but explained) language is usable in > Agora. > * Cuddlebeam's Big Language. > * Knowledge of if the Universe exists or not is a necessity to be able to > correctly interpret and understand Cuddlebeam's Big Language (otherwise you > don't know if the cipher is there or not, and you wouldn't be able to > understand the full meaning of the message). > * I could've placed any arbitrary sufficiently-accessible content as the > Big Cipher instead, thus making it relevant to the language, thus making it > relevant to communication (would I use that language), thus making it > relevant to a communicated game action (in that language), this making it > relevant to Agoran gameplay which is built on communication itself. > * If the Big Cipher's meaning of "the message this special cipher is part > of is in Cuddlebeam's Big Language" isn't deemed sufficiently impactful, it > can be arbitrarily made more impactful. -- ais523
