By the way, I have a rebuttal in progress. I'd have published it sooner, but I've been pretty busy.
Sent from my iPhone On Dec 12, 2010, at 5:47 PM, ais523 <callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 17:39 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >>> As I understand it, the judgement amounts to "ratification is >>> ineffective because it attempts something impossible". >> >> Because no one thought to make the ratification rule of sufficient >> power to make such ridiculous strict Platonism not make the gamestate >> incalculable? Michael's recent message couldn't come at a better time >> IMO. > > As I said earlier, what the rule attempts to do is not only possible, > but wouldn't help us at all if it did. Establishing the fact that at a > particular point in the past you were a player, without changing your > playership status at any /other/ time (such as the present), would be > entirely useless. The rule's entirely backwards; the reason it fails to > do that is that it specifically attempts to do that by changing the > present gamestate. > > -- > ais523 >
