The transfer is conditional on Wes being able to do something in the future (cash the promise, with a condition of 'false') that will be impossible whether the transfer succeeds or not (if it succeeds, the condition is false; if it fails, e can't cash it because e doesn't own it), so it unambiguously fails.
(Actually, I'm not quite sure it's possible to get a paradox out of this at all, because "can't transfer, can't cash" is also self-consistent, so it's easy to get "can transfer -> can't transfer", but not "can't transfer -> can transfer". I think there is probably a way, but I can't work it out right now. It's also possible that the bistability means that *all* transfers from the Tree are paradoxical, like "this statement is true".) Sent from my iPhone On May 19, 2013, at 4:55 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > By that I mean: the transfer is conditional on the future "false" (hence > retroactive action). Which is why, also, in the first case, the condition > is not that the promise is cashable on the tree, but just that it is on the > tree (so the fact that it is not "cashable from the tree" does not break > it). > > >
