On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, omd wrote: > > You can > > get around the "deemed to have not happened" by saying that one can't > > deem the impossible. That "deemed" language was always a tricky one > > in any case (similar to the sort of tricky things that happen with > > ratification). > > ...But then again, perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that the > simplest possible treatment of retroactive actions - just "deeming" > them directly and being vague about the mechanism with which time > travel is simulated - does not adequately explain what happens in > certain situations. It's not that different from any other too-vague > rule, it's just that time travel thingies tend to feel like > fundamental universal paradoxes;
I agree with you. I think calling that card-situation a true "paradox" was compelling and remains compelling due to the appearance of "actual" (i.e. explicitly rules-described) time travel. Which is probably why (at the time) there was little or no argument that it was in fact a "true" paradox. I myself am arguing for the "lawyer's" standpoint here without being trained in that way of thinking myself. To me, the 'lawyer's argument' basically says "in reality, any deeming is a fiction (since time travel isn't truly happening), so if the fiction creates a paradox, we choose some way to get out of it, which may be wholly arbitrary (but hopefully fair to all parties and the spirit of the law's intent[*]) the first time, then later follows precedent." This also, not wholly incidentally, is the way people typically deal with conflicts in "normal" board games. This is not *supposed* to satisfy a logician, which is the point of Suber's essays. I remember, when Kelly was around, at one point someone asked her about why a particular pair of clauses in the U.S. Constitution (I forget which) weren't treated as a paradox. She just laughed and said in essence "they just aren't." Not satisfying! (see e.g. the famous story on Godel's U.S. Citizenship). > the *other* fundamental CFJ waiting to be assigned, the one about > whether the gamestate stores a mutable record of history or not. This is another thing I keep thinking of the history of; what's the history of seeing the "gamestate" as some sort of state-automaton with a true platonic state that we're groping to discover (as opposed to just adjusting things on the fly as they come, as you would in a board game). I blame B. -G. [*] Example of 'intent' for the cards: the intent of the retroactive card is to cancel the effect of the targeted card. The overall effect would be everything in the discard pile, so the end result is everything in the discard pile and let's not worry about how they got there.
