Quite right Dan. While I applaud the spirit of omd's attempt to win by paradox, we are very far from being in a position to say that we cannot determine whether The UNDEAD is player. We haven't even tried to collect any of the possibly relevant evidence yet!
On 26 June 2013 11:22, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25/06/2013 4:34 PM, omd wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The >> UNDEAD<theagoranundead@gmail.**com<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. > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
