On 06/20/2011 10:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 20 Jun 2011, Pavitra wrote: >> In particular, such disclosure had not happened at the time of message P >> and hence [the first CFJ], and had occurred only to a non-public forum >> at the time of message R and hence [the second CFJ]. > > Nice. And tricky. > > On the other hand to the above, there's what's known as discovery during > the CFJ process. For example, let's say I CFJ on something "Ten years > ago, Murphy transferred a papyrus to Blob". And let's say I haven't > researched the question before calling the question. And this information > predates the agoranomic archives. > > So I don't know the answer at the time of the CFJ, and, prima facie, > finding the answer would take some unreasonable effort for most Agorans. > > However, when assigned to the CFJ, the Judge asks "does anyone know the > answer?" and Murphy says "well, yes, I happen to have my sent-mail folder > from 10 years ago, here's the evidence that I did do this." > > Basically, the factual information was set at time P, and if I get > information during the judicial process (that technically existed at time > P, even if it was hard to get) then I can judge TRUE for time P. > > If we didn't allow such after-the-fact discovery, then for every CFJ, > the judge would have to "freeze eir mind" and judge based on what e knew > at time P, discounting arguments in discussion or other facts that are > later pointed out to em. Right? > > -G.
I feel that there's an important difference here. In the ten-year-papyrus case, if the evidence doesn't come to light, the judge can say UNDETERMINED and stop there. With actions-by-announcement, uncertainty about the message usually causes the action not to happen. What happens when we have uncertainty about uncertainty -- when we don't know whether we're going to be able to find out what the message said?
