[Torg] Why 0-21? Or why not ?

[Chris]

Again, short response to why not 10, just because it popped into my head a
minute ago, and this is the most recent post: while the cosms may live on
determined axiom levels, all of the things we use in any given axiom may be
50 years or 100 years old. We still use penicillin, right? How long ago was
that? Would it be considered part of the current tech rating for Earth? So
again, while axiom ratings may have a way to be boiled down to 11 entries
for the cosms themselves, all of the things living in the cosms need more
space to exist. And it goes back to the reconnection numbers, in the end.
Yes, this thing may have come from a vastly superior cosm, but its kind of
an antique there, and is only barely better than what your cosm can create,
so you shouldn't have a hard time getting back to normal if you fail to use
it right the first time, but I dare you to try using that biotech stuff.

Everybody happy?

-chris

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 24, 2010, at 5:20 PM, Chris wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Dominick Riesland wrote:
>
> (Alexandre wrote:)
>
> >>>  Ex for a tech scale :
>
> >>>  0 : none
> >>>  1 : furs and wall painting LL
> >>>  2 : Antiquity, Land Below, Tz Ravok.
> >>>  3 : Aysle
> >>>  4 : Orrorsh
> >>>  5 : Nile Empire
> >>>  6 : Core Earth
> >>>  7 :Nippon Tech
> >>>  8 :CyberPapacy Tharkold
> >>>  9 : Space Gods
> >>>  10 : Full Tech, Time Travel and so on.
> >
> >> Axioms as numbers to generate reconnection numbers = quantitative. Your
> definition.
> >
> >  However, the 0-10 scale (as I re-pasted back in above), being 0-10, does
> not make it quantitative.
>
> It did, according to the given definition: "Axioms that can be used to
> generate reconnection numbers are quantitative."
>
> That isn't my definition, or my claim, I was just establishing that,
> according to such a definition, 0-10 qualifies.
>
> > It is merely a list of values with corresponding alphanumeric labels that
> happen to be numbers.
>
> I think you missed the context. I wasn't arguing that this chart (or any
> possible numeric Tech chart) was actually quantitative. In fact, I said the
> exact opposite. "[Axioms] can only ever be a relative scale, an arbitrary
> scale, linked only to internal logic and consistency, not to some real and
> quantifiable amount of anything."
>
> See:
> http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/2010-February/042123.html
>
> What I said was that, by the definition given, 0-10 qualified.
> --
> Jasyn Jones
> jasynj (at) gmail (dot) com
>
> "To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield."
> Ulysses, Alfred Lord Tennyson
>
> Check out my Torg webpage, Storm Knights:
> web.me.com/stormknights/
> _______________________________________________
> Torg mailing list
> Torg at justintimeadventures.com
> http://www.justintimeadventures.com/mailman/listinfo/torg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.justintimeadventures.com/pipermail/torg/attachments/20100224/923550cf/attachment-0001.html