> The "rules of the environment" is an interesting idea. You could build an
> environment (most likely many and varied) to enforce certain rules, like
> unkillability, or karma, or killer hamster attacks, or whatever. Whatever
> you like. If people want in, in they come.
> However, each member of the environment either has "admin" privellages, or
> not. If not, then the environment surely a prison. If the person has admin,
> on the other hand, then the "rules" are toothless tigers, shadows, only
> applicable whilst the person wishes them to be.
Probably for an environment to be at all coherent only a relatively few
people could have admin privileges. Your freedom would be to go to
another environment and take whatever you had gained locally that was
portable with you or gain some admin privileges within limits of not
breaking the environment too seriously. Being in an environment without
admin privilege is no more of a "prison" that being here and now. Much
less of a prison since I can freely go elsewhere where I can't now.
> This leads to the conclusion that these environments must either have some
> top level rules larger than and beyond the reach of the contained entities
> (thus prisons), or that the environments could hold no real interest or sway
> over members for more than trivial time, unless those contained entities are
> vapid escapists who choose that the rules bind them indefinitely, rather
> than deal with the rest of the universe.
Your prison conclusion is mistaken. It is simply an agreement to work
with a set of structured parameters and possibilities for a time.
Different environments might be specialized for different types of
activities and needs. For instance, Topological Reasoning environments
(a la Diaspora) or an environment specially tuned to musical
expressions. Other environments might simply be ones where a group of
reasonably compatible entities agree to a set of working rules and
environment characteristics that leads to a pleasingly harmonious (or
not) place for them to hang out and share/compete/whatever in.
No one deals with all the universe all of the time. Things like home
bases, spciality being/view places and so on have value without being
> The only environment which doesn't hold to this analysis is the "real
> world", the physical universe, and only given that it's laws are not
> dictated by a sentient (otherwise it classes as a prison, as above).
What is the "real world"? A set of informational equations running in
3-1 space that we happened to have had our beginnings as entities in?
Isn't it perhaps a bit earlier to be certain that this space is more
"real" than any and all others? What if we found this space is a
consequent or even a VR within another space? A very old idea true
enough. Again, Diaspora had some interesting suggestive things along
> > For the crims and a special hypothetical environment that is just a big
> > "Doom", well, the problem is there is zero opportunity to learn to live
> > in a less violent environment. There are no repercussions and no
> > incentives (beyond hopefully eventual boredom). There may well be such
> > environments but I doubt they would be useful for anything but certain
> > types of "entertainment". This may mark me as really odd but personally
> > I don't have any use for environments where people frag other people for
> > fun. I realize that some people do. To me that makes them odd. But
> > heh, it takes all kinds.
> Why should anyone learn if they don't want to? The only reason to force
> learning on others is to help ensure they respect a shared environment
> better. The context in which the "doom" environment was proposed
> (non-seriously) was one in which you don't have to share if you don't feel
> like it (unlikely, to be sure). In such an environment, prisons make no
> sense, except if your goal is power over others.
They don't "have to" until they simply get bored shitless with the same
ole thing and want something different.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:15 MDT