Charcoal Hyena

I just missed the night, and I'm sorry I wasn't here at all. I don't even have an excuse.

Currently going back through and reading all of Falcons posts and interactions and taking notes - as well as reading through the night to see what happened there. Won't have much commentary until I get through that. 

Once I've finished that I'll be posting a reads list and hopefully going through my reasoning for all of them. 

I was going to RP a bit but honestly there is too much going on in this thread - any time I'd have to type it up will instead be spent on the reading the thread over and over again. 

I just almost removed my vote on Falcon and put it onto Charcoal Hyena... before I realized that was me. 

Falcon - Mellon Dingo

Mainly just a poke vote, for now at least. Judging people for sleeping is kinda rude. 

3 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

Hyena's vote is objectively poor form.

While I can agree that it was poor form going with gut reads the only ones who stood out to me were Falcon and Mouse as negative gut reads - and the only reason I can think of for that was that they both were using memes to communicate. Other than that my gut is staying quiet so far, so it was down to using either a prejudice gut-read or a random guess, and at least my gut read started a bit of conversation. 

That being said I have no one else to vote for still so I'll be keeping it where it is for now 

3 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

Hyena's vote is objectively poor form.

While I can agree that it was poor form going with gut reads the only ones who stood out to me were Falcon and Mouse as negative gut reads - and the only reason I can think of for that was that they both were using memes to communicate. Other than that my gut is staying quiet so far, so it was down to using either a prejudice gut-read or a random guess, and at least my gut read started a bit of conversation. 

That being said I have no one else to vote for still so I'll be keeping it where it is for now 

3 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

Hyena's vote is objectively poor form.

While I can agree that it was poor form going with gut reads the only ones who stood out to me were Falcon and Mouse as negative gut reads - and the only reason I can think of for that was that they both were using memes to communicate. Other than that my gut is staying quiet so far, so it was down to using either a prejudice gut-read or a random guess, and at least my gut read started a bit of conversation. 

That being said I have no one else to vote for still so I'll be keeping it where it is for now 

Not going to lie got confused on time and came here 12 hours after the thread open and now feel slightly overwhelmed that there's already three pages

But thats life I guess. Or death considering that is what we deal in. 

Currently a bit distracted with work/school/some-other-societal obligation so I don't have time to do a super thorough analysis of what's going on but for now I'll be throwing a vote on Emerald Falcon Nothing against you I just really struggle with the meme format so its slightly soured my gut opinion of you. I think it looks fun though! Just doesn't work for me, sorry.

On 1/23/2023 at 1:17 AM, Salmon Meerkat said:

Simply put: it is okay for two counterfactuals to be false if they point to different possible worlds or if there is no unique possible world that can be picked out!

All that is required for if S, then P, and if S, then not-P to both evaluate as false is for there to be no coherent nearest possible S-world we can identify in which P is true. This is fundamentally the swamping neighbourhood argument that Hajek is making. You don't need to postulate an impossible world: you simply need indeterminacy in the nearest neighbours.

This is an interesting point. I did not previously understand the nuance of Hajek's argument.

Okay, so let's unpack this a bit.

Specifically, let's try and define more rigorously what indeterminacy means in this context.

I would argue, that it does not exactly mean that no unique world can be picked out.

Let us examine, for a moment, the following statement:

"If the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter were not π, then the area of a circle would not be πr²."

I am going to argue two things about this statement:

• Any reasonable definition of counterfactuals should treat this statement as true.
• This statement cannot possibly be referring to a single coherent nearest possible world.

First, here is my proof that this statement cannot possibly be referring to a single coherent nearest possible world (and by extension, that at least some counterfactual statements behave like this one does):

While the premise of this counterfactual statement can't possibly have a single nearest possible world, intuitively, I think there are strong reasons to declare that it is still a true statement.

We can imagine a class of possible worlds where the value of π differs, but the laws of geometry and physics and such are still otherwise the same as our own. In such a world, lets say that the new ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter is π'. Then, it logically follows that the area of a circle in that world would be π'r², and not πr². In other words, in every single on of these worlds, the consequent of the counterfactual statement is true.

We can imagine another class of possible worlds where both the value of π differs and the laws of geometry and physics differ. Since more things are different from our own world, I would argue that this class of worlds is rather further away from our own world than the above class is.

Therefore, even though there is no coherent single world that the counterfactual statement refers to, the consequent is invariant across all of the worlds that it might refer to. In any world that might be the closest one, the area of a circle is not πr². And this, I feel, is sufficient to make the counterfactual true.

I will go a little further than that, and attempt to formally define how I think a counterfactual statement works. Or at least, how it really should work I do not know if this is how people define it already.

I like this definition quite a bit, actually.

While it may seem like a tall order to have to agree on a partial ordering and potentially a threshold of certainty as well, both of those things have a clear procedure for agreeing on a more general case if you can't agree on specifics. For partial ordering, you can construct a more conservative partial ordering that both parties agree on by stipulating that two possible worlds are considered on equal footing by default, and one only comes before the other if both parties agree that it should be so. For thresholds of certainty, you just take the higher one: if you think that 99% is good enough and another person thinks that 99.9% is good enough, then you both agree that 99.9% is good enough.

So, going back to the original statement.

On 1/20/2023 at 11:34 PM, Salmon Meerkat said:

It is false that if counterfactual statements were in fact true, then you would sometimes use them

It is also false that if counterfactuals were in fact true, then you would sometimes not use them

I would argue that this only works if one of two things is true:

1. There are no possible worlds in which "counterfactual statements are in fact true" is true. Only impossible ones.
2. There are possible worlds in which "counterfactual statements are in fact true" is true. However, there is no reasonable partial ordering that allows you to draw a neighborhood of "closest worlds" around our own that gives a "clean cut" with respect to either of the consequents: I sometimes use counterfactuals, or I sometimes don't use counterfactuals.

It sounds like you want to falsify the two counterfactuals on the basis of the second case.

In other words, it sounds like you are saying that there are some possible worlds that we can't rule out from being very close to our own, in which I always use counterfactuals, and others in which I never use counterfactuals (even though they are in fact true).

To me, this is a very strange claim.

I believe that any practically near world to our own is probably a world in which I sometimes do use counterfactuals, and sometimes don't.

On 1/23/2023 at 1:17 AM, Salmon Meerkat said:

2. Do you think the truth table is the same?

Good question! I don't know .

Do truth tables even work for counterfactuals? I'm not sure they do.

Like, what would the rows even be? Possible worlds? Just because there are 4 different permutations of the variables we're looking at, doesn't mean there are only 4 possible worlds. There's potentially infinite possible worlds. On the other hand, in all of those infinite possible worlds there's no guarantee that any of them expresses a particular permutation of the truth values of S and P, so even though 4 rows isn't enough, it might also be too many. So I'm not sure what a truth table actually means in this context.

I feel like part of what counterfactuals are for is that they allow you to reason about systems where you couldn't make a truth table, due to ordinary and practical constraints such as the size of the truth table. This comes at the price that you're required to have some meaningful notion about how similar a world is to our own, and that other people might disagree with you about it.

On 1/23/2023 at 1:17 AM, Salmon Meerkat said:

I also note the bolded part is not in fact a point of wide agreement - I invite you to consider how well classical logic rules are in fact known to hold sway and the fact we have an entire array of post-classical systems designed specifically to patch the holes in the classical system.

Wait really?

Interesting.

I confess I have doubts about how introducing contradictions patches holes, but I am sure I'm not the only one to have said that.

Some Google searches have turned up paraconsistent logic. Are there other systems I can read about?

Oh yea the dead doc was having a fun time with that

I should have known better than to bet against your ability to paranoia, though, Swan

Disclaimer: I'm sorry we're filling the thread like this :P. We didn't get to do it during the game okay we have to do it sometime.

Quote

Actually, no, because your statement implies the law of noncontradiction applies straightforwardly to conditionals and we know it doesn't. In other words: it only works if we assert that counterfactual A and counterfactual B are negations of each other, but just because the consequents are opposed doesn't imply the counterfactual itself is. 

Or to put it another way:

One can't, unless one is Graham Priest and endorses one of multiple paraconsistent logic systems, assert that P and not-P at the same time. (Note that even Priest is not committed to the claim that it is always the case that P and not-P, only that it is sometimes the case that P and not-P.)

However: it is also not the case that if A, then P, and if A, then not-P actually translate into logical contradictions of each other. (Part of this has to do with the truth table.) Conditionals don't evaluate the same way as naked statements. Some of this boils down to arguments about whether hook is the correct translation of the conditional or not. 

See above. This rests on a contentious translation that contradictory consequents are actually contradictory simpliciter. I also point out that this doesn't work well with multi-value logics and paraconsistent systems. In fact, given you are evaluating counterfactuals by modal logic, you're already looking at a selection of systems, some of which are silent about contradictions.

This is true. We're in agreement.

Given the two statements:

• If A, then P.
• If A, then ~P.

It is logically equivalent to:

• If A, then (P and ~P).

And (P and ~P) can't be true.

However, it is okay for the consequent to be a contradiction. If the antecedent is false, then the whole statement still evaluates to true. In other words, the statement simplifies down to:

• ~A

And ~A is potentially a true statement. There is no contradiction.

However.

That's how material implication works.

It is, as far as I know, not how counterfactual implication works.

If A counterfactually implies P, then that means the following: In the nearest possible reality to our own in which A is true, P is true. (If A is in fact true in the reality we currently live in, then the reality we live in is the nearest possible reality in which A is true, clearly This is not very relevant to anything, I just think it's a funny edge case )

This semantic is weird . Quite a lot weirder than material implication. The whole "possible realities" thing feels vaguely defined by philosophers and just generally offends my mathematical sensibilities, but it is also a necessary part of the discussion, because it is in the definition of a counterfactual. So we are going to have to talk about possible realities >:P.

I am reasonably confident that you're aware of all this, but in case something in my premises is objectionable or even (heavens forbid) outright wrong, I am laying it all out.

One of the ways counterfactuals are weird, is that by the very definition, a false premise doesn't automatically make the counterfactual statement true, like it does for material implication. It's a counterfactual. They are mainly useful precisely when the premise is false.

Returning to our example, but with counterfactual statements this time:

• If A were true, then P would be true.
• If A were true, then P would not be true.

Again, this is logically equivalent to:

• If A were true, then (P and ~P) would be true.

This is where the fun begins.

This counterfactual statement presupposes that we are thinking about a reality where A is true. Maybe not the reality we live in, but a reality. Specifically, one that departs from our own reality by the least possible amount in order to make A become true. In that reality, the one where A is true, you are claiming that (P and ~P) is true.

But there is wide agreement that (P and ~P) cannot possibly be true in any reality where the basic known rules of logic still hold sway.

So, in essence, you are claiming that the nearest reality to our own in which A is true, is one in which the basic known rules of logic do not hold sway.

That the shortest possible path to making A become true, involves destroying the foundational tenets of logic.

And that is a claim whose truth value, I think, can reasonably be evaluated.

If A is itself a contradictory statement, then the nearest possible reality in which A is true, would indeed have to be a reality in which contradictions are potentially allowed.

If A is not an inherently contradictory statement, then the nearest possible reality in which A is true, should not be a reality in which contradictions are allowed. Since allowing contradictions would likely represent a much greater departure from our own reality than what is strictly necessary to make A be true.

In essence, this is how the counterfactual statement simplifies:

• It is necessary in all logically consistent realities that ~A.

This is still potentially true, but it is a somewhat harder thing to argue than just saying A is false in our current reality.

Edited to add:

12 hours ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

Edited to add:

Here's the truth table for S⊃P and S⊃~P (can't really use proper not notation here.) The combined truth table is highlighted in blue. If they were really contradictions, the truth table values we should see is F-F-F-F: contradictions formally defined evaluate as false under all possible truth values in the table. Compare to:

Sir, this is a lovely truth table and very aesthetically pleasing.

However, I am reasonably sure the truth table for the & column should read FFTT not TFTT.

Your overall point about how material implication works is still completely valid, but if I can't catch a break for mistakenly arguing the spiked couldn't possibly have a Thug when they clearly did well then you can't catch a break for making an untrue truth table >:P.

4 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

It is both false that if counterfactual statements were in fact true, then you would sometimes use them, and that if counterfactual statements were in fact false, you would sometimes not use them. It is also false that if counterfactuals were in fact true, then you would sometimes not use them >:P

Sir are you sure? >:P

If counterfactuals were in fact true, then you are saying that both I wouldn't sometimes use them and I wouldn't sometimes not use them. In other words, it seems that in this hypothetical world I would use both use counterfactuals all of the time and use counterfactuals none of the time. If this was what you were implying, this would be an obvious contradiction.

It comes down to whether you took my antecedent to imply that counterfactuals people use are generally true, or took it to the extreme that counterfactuals are all true without exception. In the former case, even if you don't believe that counterfactuals are generally true, and thus that the nearest reality to our own in which counterfactuals were generally true is not in fact the reality we live in, it is unlikely that this reality is one in which logical contradictions are permitted, as that would very likely constitute a much more dramatic departure from our current reality than is strictly necessary to make counterfactuals become generally true. In the latter case, in any hypothetical world where all counterfactuals are true, it is likely necessary that brazen logical contradictions are permitted, so in that case feel free to carry on, I suppose.

1 minute ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

My suggestion is to try counterfactuals and then when the GMs @ you, direct them to my grand-supervisor Alan Hajek's persuasive paper about how most ordinary counterfactuals in fact evaluate as false, therefore everything you say is a lie.

If counterfactual statements were in fact true, then I would sometimes use them >:P.

1 minute ago, Sapphire Elephant said:

I've got to remember me that one for the next time there's a KKC game...

:eyes:

I suppose the alternative is that you lie about everything, so the linguist scan of whether you're lying is functionally useless.

3 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

Why would there be...?

Dunno sir, you sure you're not thinking about something you said?

Dunno sir, but it occurs to me that phrasing everything as a question to avoid technically lying is one of the oldest tricks in the book.

3 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

It's not my problem SE players aren't good at listening to what they're told >:P

Is there some other situation on your mind where this is happening? >:P

Say, hypothetically, you warned people not to do something and they're doing it anyway? >:P

7 minutes ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

Smh I never lied to you!

I was completely honest!

That sounds like an admission that you lied to other people though doesn't it >:(.

Technically, you never actually talked to me in-game, although due to the extensive PM I inherited between you and the previous Charcoal Hyena, it feels like we have spoken :P.

If you didn't lie to anyone else, then riddle me this: how do you explain the fact that everyone thinks you're Kasimir, huh? I know for a fact that you're really Kjell.

1 hour ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

Would I ever lie to you?

Me???

Does a meerkat face this cute hugging an emotional support salmon ever aggressively lie about the identities of various assorted players both blatantly and willfully???

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SuspiciouslySpecificDenial

2 hours ago, Plum Rhinoceros said:

We did the thing!

We did!

AG8 wasn't a fluke! Or a flounder. Or a mackerel. Studies have shown that it was, in fact, an SE game and not a fish.

1 hour ago, Salmon Meerkat said:

Private Onidsen is saved.

Darn right! Mission accomplished .

46 minutes ago, Mauve Crocodile said:

Threads are so much easier to read when they're sans sheriff. 

Ah yes, the spiritual successor to sans serif .

I was only in the game for, what, 2 day turns? (Admittedly 3.5 night turns.) Not very long in the grand scheme of things, before getting dusted off. Well, hopefully the previous Charcoal Hyena approves of what I did with the time. Which, if I'm being honest, was mostly to make funny PMs while putting off rereading the previous cycles. And occasionally voting for a different spiked than the one who was getting bandwagonned into oblivion at the time, for diversity's sake.

Honestly, pinch-hitting is fun. Maybe I should do it more often.

In any case, good game, all .

ok fine somebody asked me to skim d1 so here you go

lotsa RP, shame we aren't doing that as much anymore altho thats how it goes later in a game

I like Hyena v1 although that's neither here nor there

Dingo hurts my eyes

for the most part Mouse and Croc ties feel inconclusive on the one hand yes I could absolutely see this interaction occurring between 2 spiked on the other hand yes I could absolutely see this interaction occurring between 1 spiked and 1 villager

stylistically Falcon's D1 is interesting and I like that they have a summary of actual conclusions so early but probably honestly NAI at this point, most players who make a habit of doing analysis do it whether good or evil, still the volume of analysis based on so little would be harder for a spiked to come up with imo so maybe super very slight village

one of the only posts that sticks out to me as interesting for reasons other than good RP is this one:

Crocodile actually votes Mouse for unclear reasons in a way that feels somewhat distance-y but your mileage may vary

Crocodile argues Koros [Ostrich], Aylia [Hyena] and WitLees [Chameleon] are all 3 more likely village based on past games meta and PM shenanigans, I know at least 1 of them is village but not about the other 2 continues to argue even more loudly for this point in this post

Toucan seemingly votes for Scorp on accident when they meant to vote for Iguana, which ??? probs NAI

Alb just kinda Albing

Alb is then stating Croc is village, and also disagrees with most of what Croc said (here), bit weird vibes because it just feels fundamentally too early to flag some1 as village. Then again Tuatara did it and they flipped green. Honestly the fact that Alb does this after a confirmed village did it makes it somehow worse :P.

Croc retracting off Mouse and randomly switching onto Kangaroo with less reasoning than their previous 2 votes, in the last hour of the cycle (here), is definitively a bad look for Mouse, no two ways about it

Dragonfly also voted in a way that would save Mouse in the last hour tho (here) so either the spiked are very incautious of steering things (in which case, why didn't they steer the later cycles more tbh) or Dragonfly is village or Mouse is village

takeaways:

mouse slightly more sus in my mind than b4

dragonfly and mouse not super duper likely E/E

honestly, my reads mostly aren't changed much overall, but I read d1 hope ur happy

also sorry 4 double post

14 hours ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

That helps quite a bit, now it should be easier to see when the elims decided to bus Crocodile and Flamingo.

I believe they chose to bus Flamingo right out of the gates on D4, with Croc being the first Flamingo voter. I don't believe they likely planned to bus Flamingo on D3, since Lion is the one who got voted D3. I think they decided to bus Flamingo D4 only after it became apparent that the coinshot had attacked a second time and wouldn't let things go. I would assess that they wanted Crocodile to look good in the aftermath of the bussing, and did not expect a scan on Croc to get revealed and derail everything.

Edit: If they did want to bus Flamingo on D3, that would honestly be very ironic. It means the spiked were trying to bus Flamingo for three cycles straight, but the village kept on voting up spiked other than Flamingo instead :P. I do not place a very high credence in this version of events though.

25 minutes ago, Pearl Chameleon said:

The way it is worded makes me think it could be a slip. The post by Croc, whether it's about Croc being evil or Albatross, I can't quite tell.

This is a good catch!

Unfortunately, I also can't tell if it means Croc is evil (which we already knew of course) or that Albatross is

2 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

Uh, also, aren’t you the one who was going “don’t kill flamingo i think he’s village” yeshterday? And now you’re not voting for either flamingo or for lion, you’re voting for me (which you did before I even said anything). But calling me suspicious, after I did vote for flamingo (which you didn’t do, I don’t think), and for not voting for lion (which you also aren’t). What happened to your tune?

Yeah no my tune's screwed six ways from Sunday no contest there

3 minutes ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

so there’sh my logic and introspection. If you have any  problemsh with my logic point it out, but don’t make vague referencesh to “how I look” without reading what I’ve said.

Pls no I'm rubbish at reading and especially rereading things the amount of rereading I've done in this game is abysmal why must u do this to meeeee

...Okay fine I reread it :P.

None of the reasons you used to lynch Flamingo don't apply to Lion.

So I think my original point stands: you're singing a pretty different tune about this vote than the Flamingo one and there isn't any villagery reason I can easily see for that.

The only difference between the Flamingo train and the Lion train that I agree is legit is that the distro analysis has changed, but I've finally learnt my lesson and I don't think distro analysis is worth squat in a Tyrian Falls game.

9 minutes ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

What ish your problem with me voting for penguin, exactly?

None. Feel free to do that.

2 hours ago, Opal Lion said:

apparently I'm some sort of twisted chromium ferring since I rolled thug again this turn.

Well, that simplifies matters a bit, doesn't it?

Either you're a spiked and lying, or a very very improbable thing happened.

2 hours ago, Opal Lion said:

I can't be the only one who's tired of this kill the survivor chulldung

I agree. Sorta. It's a bit of a drag, if only because there isn't much to talk about without retreading old ground. I can understand why you'd be getting tired of it.

But, my sympathy is limited Particularly if you're spiked, obviously

For one, I don't have any extra lives If you want to be all "woe is me, my lot is unfair" when you've cheated death twice and are claiming to have been gifted with the power to do it a third time.... bruh

And secondly, you aren't in the situation you're in right now just because people blindly kill survivors. Look, if somebody wanted to kill you once, it makes complete sense that they'd want to do it again if nothing changed. That shouldn't be surprising. The only way something changes between then and now, is if you change it. An extra life isn't a second chance, it's a delaying tool. The reason you're in this situation, is because somebody decided they wanted to kill you in the first place, not particularly because you survived the initial two attempts. And the reason I can only assume that the village voted for you and then the coinshot targeted you, is because you're pretty suspicious.  In ways that have nothing to do with surviving a kill. I've pointed out ways that you're suspicious in the thread more than once now, and I'm definitely not the only one, heck I'm a latecomer to all of this and other people have definitely done a better job of it than me. And you haven't addressed these reasons.

So yeah no hard feelings hopefully but by Trell I want blood

2 hours ago, Amethyst Scorpion said:

*a small orphan boy rolls out from under a table, smelling intensely of alcohol*

oh thank god rhino and shwan finally stopped arguing with each other. I had to drink like 14 shots of joosh to block out their fighting! Glad they’re getting along now, I assume they finally put ashide their differencesh and come together in friendship —- oh, no, actually it wash because rhino wash brutally murdered.

Well, at leasht it’sh quieter.

i would like to hear people’sh reasonsh for voting for lion. I don’t think shurvivimg is reashon alone to vote to kill lion honestly. The coinshot obviously shishpectsh him, but the coinshot is a human being (shorry, animal) and is not infallible. Flamingo ended up being evil, but there were reasons to shushpect him beyond just shurviving. There are multiple roles which interrupt night kills for various reasonsh. Intereshted to hear lion’sh eclshplanashun. Also, sheems like a bully move to jump on him while he’s down, plenty already on that *hic* wagon.

In the meantime there are many people (shorry, beashtsh) who are not lion who I would like to hear more from. Shartroosh Penguin, I will chooshe for now, however you shlice it his votesh have sheemed a little opportunishtic. Would like to hear shome more … reasoning … from that *hiccups ferociously for 17 minutes* party. Or any.

(Also, in another life I was famously racist against birds.)

(Alsho alsho, praise the ja, I do believe this here alcohol hash cured my shtutter giving me the confidenshe to shpeak my mind! Yes definitely that and not it being really hard to type stutters all the time.)

While I appreciate any attempt to diversify the vote as a matter of principle, this isn't necessarily the best look for somebody I think might be E/E with Lion, you know? Where exactly was all this introspection and logic when Flamingo was up on the chopping block?

...it's the alchohol, isn't it.

Don't you know that drinking at your tender age is probably illegal or something >:|

I've realized I'd maybe rather avoid clogging the thread with yet another consecutive boring unanimous vote against an uncommonly tenacious spiked player. And the spiked can't possibly prevent a coinshot on Lion tomorrow night, due to how lurching works. So maybe I'll unvote Opal Lion and push Amethyst Scorpion instead.

Okay so FYI: Swan's been Seeked as Village Thug. I don't know how the heck. But that's why I'm voting the way I'm voting. Have a nice day.

I'm not paranoid, you're paranoid .

Opal Lion.

We are not a cult smh!!!!!

Fingers crossed yeah!