What a preposterous question! It’s…uh…well, it has to be..I th-head explodes

Because the paper’s spacetime geometry is shaped in such a way that it envelopes the stone in both real-space and subspace, influencing the stone’s gravimetric properties at the subquantum level. This causes a spike of the stone’s gravity to at least 47 Gigacochrane, compressing it to a micro black hole for a few nanoseconds, shattering the stone’s atomic bonds. The ultimate ending is a short lived nadion burst, after which nothing of the stone remains.

Paper Can’t Win

And.. that settles it!

What is the rock gonna do? Flatten the paper?

@mrlaconic that made me laugh out loud.

@mrlaconic Hahaha! Fucking great.

seriously folks where the hellass did this idea come from? cheers!

paper covers rock. Now the rock can’t see.

I got nothing

something has to beat rock, otherwise we all would just pick rock and the game is ruined.

@963chris the answer to this age old question can only be found at the bottom of a pitcher of beer.

I’m pretty sure it’s just a game that needed three options. Paper doesn’t beat rock, paper covers rock. It’s the person who chooses paper that beats the person who chooses rock. Probably because the latter is weighed down by having to carry it around.

@SavoirFaire: everyone knows paper beats rock. call it whatever ya want – its just semantics. also cant rocks be small + light? ive worked with some pretty heavyweight paper before.

@963chris It is semantics, but semantics can be important. Paper beats rock when the game is viewed from an external perspective, this is true. But the in-game explanations of what is going on are “rock crushes scissors,” “scissors cut paper,” “paper covers rock.” So from an internal perspective, paper is not beating rock at anything. The objects in the game interact, and we determine a “winner” from the external perspective. We consider paper to be the winner when it covers rock perhaps because we take enveloping/subsuming as an act of dominance, which in turn is taken as the act of a victor. Note that when players act out the game, the one who chooses paper grasps and covers the hand of the one who chooses rock, thus literally gaining the upper hand and control over the other.

As for their weight, any rock heavy enough to crush scissors will have to be heavier than even heavyweight paper.

Or, as I said before, it could just be a game.

this may help somewhat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-paper-scissors. in particular:

“The objective is to select a gesture which defeats that of the opponent. Gestures are resolved as follows:

* Rock blunts or breaks scissors: that is, rock defeats scissors
* Scissors cut paper: scissors defeats paper
* Paper covers, sands or captures rock: paper defeats rock

If both players choose the same gesture, the game is tied and the players throw again.”

The article is written primarily from the external perspective, so I don’t see how it helps. Or at least, I don’t see how it contradicts what I’ve written.

And for whatever it’s worth, my answers are only quasi-serious. It’s really just a game.

what isnt a game? i forgot that RPS was purely a game of internal perspective exclusive of the alterity of the other. teeheehee.

@963chris Not being a postmodernist here. Internal and external perspectives are relevant to other forms of philosophical and logical analysis as well.

+ that has exactly what to do with RPS? in any event the pomo i studied didnt really embrace a metaphysics based upon internal-external, causality, logos, etc, so im not sure how you reckin you were being pomo yo. i certainly didnt catch wind of any nietzsche, heidegger, husserl, sartre, derrida, baudrillard, levinas, etc. though it would be any interesting commentary to imagine what each would say on the RPS model. oops lyotard too!

The internal and external perspective are relevant to how we interpret RPS. Re-read my comments above if you’ve missed how they are relevant.

My point about not being a postmodernist, meanwhile, has to do with your comment about alterity of the other. We don’t talk about that in the world of analytic philosophy. This is not to say that it is worthless, but just that it’s not what I was getting at above.

oh…now i understand! analytic philosophy. ill leave you to yer russell, moore, early witt, carnap + crew. long live logical positivism!

I’m not a logical positivist, either. Sorry.

Got anymore pigeonholes?

I love that this Q got 22 (well, 23 now) posts.

Because it looks better on Pa-per view….everyone loves an underdog. 24 :¬)

i know + still no convincing answer yet – only an annoying aside!

ooh, snap!

@963chris Well, my answer is that there is no answer. At least, no satisfying answer of the sort for which you are looking. It’s just a game, and it needed some rules.

QED.

Because it blocks rock’s ability to “see”?

Rock, represented by closed fist, represents agression. Even the manner of the throw is aggressive. Paper represents the opposite of agression, even in the manner of the throw in the contest of rock, paper scissors. Paper is subtle, nothing agressive. An open hand cannot be used to hold a weapon. Paper has power over the masses when it is used for writing and communicating. It is a subtle attack. Scissors are a tool and can be associated with industry, craft work or making things. There is a certain amount of agression associated with scissors; they are sharp adn dangerous. Scissors represent controlled agression.

http://www.worldrps.com/advanced.html

@bkcunningham: very interesting insight + great link. now thats what i was talking about! a large part of why i was asking about this is that there are even larger variants of RPS that have been created + am considering this as a visual ideation project for some students in the near future. in order to build more elaborate systems it would be good to unearth the fundamentals. this is on track indeed. thx!

@963chris Why is it interesting when @bkcunningham says it, but not when I say it?

@SavoirFaire: perhaps because it is logical, positive, points to a worthy resource (rather than just lambasting one) + comes across as a cogent, tenable point of view with a bit of finesse to boot. certain divergence into internal-external + semantics only serves as deviations from the central discussion. a ‘beer’ sense of humor doesnt hurt either ;p

@963chris there is a World Rock, Paper, Scissors Society that may be of assistance with your project.

http://www.worldrps.com/

sandpaper.