Does fool's announcement of intent to destroy a promise: a) destroy the promise b) begin the destruction of the promise c) schedule the destruction of the promise d) place a time-limit on the action of destroying the promise e) only announce intent
I'm approaching from "order of operations". - arkestra On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-29 at 16:26 -0400, Fool wrote: > > I cash the promise titled "!!!" [Text: "!!!". Cashing condition: "This > > promise has existed for 2 months." It was created May 21.] > > I salute the author of that promise. > > > > I create the following two promises and transfer them to the Tree: > > > > ###################################################################### > > Title: Paraconsistency is overrated, part 1 > > Text: I transfer 1 Yak to the casher > > Cashing condition: Casher is a first-class player. > > Destruction by author condition: > > The promise titled "Paraconsistency is overrated, part 2" CAN be > > destroyed by its author with notice. > > ###################################################################### > > Title: Paraconsistency is overrated, part 2 > > Text: I transfer 1 Yak to the casher > > Cashing condition: Casher is a first-class player. > > Destruction by author condition: > > IF the promise titled "Paraconsistency is overrated, part 1" CAN be > > destroyed by its author with notice, THEN: > > - the author of this promise CAN de-register all first-class > > players other than himself by announcement; AND > > - persons other than the author of this promise CAN NOT register. > > ###################################################################### > > > > I intend, with notice, to destroy the two promises I just created. > > > > I de-register all first-class players other than myself. > > > > I claim this Nomic in the name of Her Feline Majesty Queen Davy. > > More arguments: > > - You don't have power 3, so there's a high-power rule preventing you > making the secured change of deregistering players (which ruins the > entire scam via making the entire thing into a genuine paradox rather > than a forced implication) > > - The promises don't have power 3, and thus are incapable of making a > high-power rule act in a way utterly different from what it suggests > (I'm dubious about this line of argument, basically because I think it's > badly specified whether rule 2140 triggers or not in any given case, but > it's worth considering) > > -- > ais523 > >
