On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:00 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > This might work, although I don't see anything particularly broken > about the current version.
I'm mainly thinking about the confused circumstances surrounding CFJ 3244. No harm was done, but I still think the current state of affairs seems undesirable. Also, if I remember correctly, this is Lewis Carroll's way of resolving the liar paradox: the statement "this sentence is false" simply doesn't mean anything. (Though I think he was actually talking about the stone-so-heavy paradox. He said that, given that God is omnipotent, the phrase "create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it" is meaningless, and thus so is the statement "God can create a stone so heavy that He can't lift it".) On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Sean Hunt <scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote: > Principle of explosion. I'm surprised that Tanner didn't use it for a > Paradox attempt, but hey. Well, in my opinion, there is no valid self-contradictory interpretation of the rules, and so it is never possible to legitimately Win by Paradox. —Machiavelli
