On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 8:22 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > Proposal: Fifty-Nine Thirty-Seven (AI=3) > > In Rule 2367 "Messy Statements", replace "nonsensical and meaningless" > with "inaccurate and incorrect". > > [Revert P7395, because it probably breaks Win by Paradox. The intent > of the rule was to prevent trivial paradoxes based on violating rules > requiring statements to be accurate, but just about any CFJ statement > about a legitimate paradox based on infinite regress - I have one in > mind - is messy, so is now "nonsensical and meaningless": although > UNDECIDABLE is still appropriate, such a CFJ would probably no longer > count as a turtle because the meaningless statement would not be about > "the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action".]
Arguments: considering all messy statements to be incorrect results in a highly logically inconsistent (not to mention confusing) state of affairs, which seems like a rather silly thing to do. And I (still) believe that it is not, and it never has been, possible to legitimately win by paradox, on the grounds that there is no correct self-contradictory interpretation of the rules: if an interpretation of the rules contradicts itself, then that interpretation is certainly incorrect. I don't think I follow your reasoning arguing that the "nonsensical and meaningless" version breaks winning by paradox. Are you saying that with the "inaccurate and incorrect" version, a paradoxical statement could be "about the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action", whereas with the "nonsensical and meaningless" version, the very same statement is no longer "about the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action"? —Machiavelli
