On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 13:31, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have a set of things called Rules, but they could be renamed to > Regulations without ceasing to be in effect; yet if I make a set of > things known to > Agora as Regulations, through a contract, they cannot govern the > gamestate. So clearly the gamestate is defined in relation to a class > of entities, those entities being the Rules; they can define new > entities to be Rules, or existing Rules to no longer be Rules. But > there is a boundary between Rules and not-Rules; and we are agreeing > to the Rules as a whole. In Nomic Wars, the Rules are Sections; and > certainly the existing Sections allowed me to create a new Section. > Correction: the rules allow you to create a new VOIDED section.
> If we use the former "meta-interpretation", then there is no paradox. > When my Section was enacted, the Sections collectively said that > higher-Rating takes precedence over higher-Rating, so for an instant, > the old definition remains and the Section is void. But then, that > instant, because the Section is void, it cannot override the normal > precedence Sections; so they take effect for interpretation of the > contract at the *next* instant. etc... > Would anyone take it seriously if the US Congress passed a law stating that their legislation took precedence over the US Constitution, which was now void? BobTHJ
