Posted by
gepr on
Feb 15, 2021; 9:00pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/A-public-letter-to-Nick-cc-any-that-write-here-tp7600765p7600782.html
Yes, except, *like a* broken record, what I'm saying is all about scoping. The trade-offs I'm talking about are (mostly) understood well when we switch from ℝ⁴ to (irregular) graphs. The games of the playground come with some implicit rules (light cones, at least). The games on the net *may* have implicit rules. But those rules are at least less intuitive, if not entirely obscure.
On 2/15/21 12:42 PM, jon zingale wrote:
> Glen, I love this analogy. As a kid, we had a version of "hack ball" in
> almost anything we did. To some extent, it was exactly the loosely defined
> and chaotic character of the play that shouldered the work of seduction.
> Children intuitively know that *hack ball* between others can be *play* for
> them too, the medium is the invitation, the affordance of which is almost
> gifted to them by their own inability to be neurotically formal. Your
> comment takes me back to elementary school playground games, games where at
> times the entire playground was engaged and whose rules could only be
> locally defined. Is it that you are suggesting a trade-off?
--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.comFRIAM-COMIC
http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/archives:
http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen