On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 08:52, Alex Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement "The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to
> > Friendly without objection.".
> >
> > Arguments: This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
> > phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a random Win by Paradox.
> >
> > A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
> > {{{
> > A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
> > for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those
> > rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be
> > possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of
> > actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be
> > required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable
> > in finite time.
> > }}}
> > and nomics are defined by nomic rulesets.
Gratuitous Arguments:
Keyword = explicit (fully revealed or expressed without vagueness,
implication, or ambiguity)
As argued by ais523, we do not (perhaps cannot) know whether Wooble is
governed by a set of rules. Ergo, I would argue, IF e is governed by a set
of rules, they are clearly not -explicitly- defined anywhere. Unless you're
into the existence of platonic concepts. And I think those are a bit of a
silly invention.
FALSE
Billy Pilgrim
