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.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
