On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote:
On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD<theagoranund...@gmail.com> wrote:
I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327.
Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't
want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :)
I invoke judgement on the statement "The legality of The UNDEAD's
attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality."
I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't
reveal which one. My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal
iff I was the one who sent it.
Maybe you should have delayed about 11 hours. By rule 214, I must assign
myself Judge. By rule 215, I have 24 hours. But I rule now: FALSE.
Goethe's arguments:
Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes
along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a
mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or
unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of
indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish
where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has
been "assume each new email address is from a different person". Omd
questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not
sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, stick
with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other
than omd).
Clearly the presumption is of course that the Undead is not a Voter.
Furthermore I fail to see how even the mathematician's (thought it was
supposed to be logician's) version of the argument is sound. The
reference to the "principle of indifference" instead makes it sound like
some sort of Bayesian reasoning. But let me put my Bayesian hat on
anyway. For this to work I would have to put 100% credence in omd's
statement and then think that there was nothing to epistemically
distinguish the two branches. This is far from the case.
--Dan the non-Bayesian Fool.
