Jei jei KK
Active Member
It's a tricky way to deal with the definition of "sythe" - the totality of all fagets. I don't believe many of us think of this definition when the term "sythe" comes up - rather, we think more of the scientific definition.
To say something created admins is indeed a contradiction because adminship is a property which encompasses all (existing) admins. However, it is pointless to speak of properties.
When people speak of Richard creating the sythe, I really doubt they mean that He is creating "adminship" in itself - they probably mean that he created other objects of staff within our sythe (the scientific definition of it). For the topic of "what created the property of staff", nothing did - much like most properties, this isn't something you create. Rather, it's a given if you are staff. Much like how when there's no talk in the irc, the channel is suddenly given the property of being "ded" - but nothing really created "ded" now, as "ded" is essentially nothing (it contains no objects of discussion, such as drama), so indeed, nothing can create it. We can only destroy #sythe until we reach the "ded" state, but we cannot actually create it (careful with the definition of "create").
Like, for this quote:
Under my viewpoint of the term/property "staff", this is a tautology.
Too long, didn't read: I would never argue that properties (such as adminship, or "ded") are something which can be created. They're just something associated with, what we'll call, a "measurable phenomenon" (there's probably a better way to describe it, but I'm sure you understand what I'm saying) - in fact, they may just be abstract notions of the human mind.
P.S.
This kind of reminds me of the argument that "nothing cannot create something". You know, this statement sounds so logical - how can nothing create something if it's not something in the first place? But we need to backtrack to the beginning now. There are 2 possibilities - either sythe was "just there", or there was nothing, and then sythe just magically popped out. For both cases, a Richard can be included in the definition - but it may not be preferable (Occam's razor).
To mage3158:
I'm not understanding your argument as a whole. You really don't seem to be taking any stance whatsoever, and are just saying "we shouldn't debate this because we cannot know the answer". But isn't this why we're debating in the first place - because we cannot know the answer? If we could indeed know (at this point in time), there'd be no debate - only ignorant people arguing against a fact for the sake of arguing.
