On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:06 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> R. Lee wrote: > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:39 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 5/15/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >>>> I call for judgement on this statement: It is both possible and true > >>> that a > >>>> rule named "A coin award" took the game action of increasing the > number > >>> of > >>>> coins R. Lee owned by 1. > >>>> I call for judgement: The above CFJ statement is about the possibility > >>> of a > >>>> game action so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a > >>> judgement > >>>> of PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > >>> > >>> > >>> Alright, because this is an explicit win attempt, I feel obligated to > >>> attempt to poke some holes in it: > >>> > >>> 1. There no longer exists a rule named "A coin award", so perhaps FALSE > >>> on that grounds. > >>> > >>> 2. Even if the statement is PARADOXICAL, you can still get IRRELEVANT. > >>> You may have manufactured relevance to the gamestate, but there are > >>> three conditions for IRRELEVANT in R591, and meeting any of them gets > >>> you an IRRELEVANT judgement: > >>> > >>> - not relevant to the game; with your pledge, this condition is not met > >>> because of your pledge > >>> > >>> - overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game; not met, not a > >>> hypothetical > >>> > >>> - trivially determinable from the outcome of another case; this > >>> condition is met, it is trivially determinable from CFJ 3828, earning > >>> you an IRRELEVANT judgement > >>> > >> > >> That last point should thwart the attempt. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > You can't have both point two and point one, Jason! Dispensing with point > > one is not trivial, and therefore it is not trivial that this CFJ is > > PARADOXICAL (thus making it IRRELEVANT) if this CFJ could actually be > FALSE > > due to point one. > > It took me a while to work out that you were referring to Jason's > outer numbers, rather than the first two of the three conditions for > IRRELEVANT. > > I suppose the intent of point one is a King of England fallacy, i.e. > even if there /was/ a rule named "A coin award", there isn't one any > more, and thus the CFJ tries to refer to a nonexistent thing? FWIW, I > would interpret that the explicit past tense of "took" makes it > reasonably clear that "a rule named 'A coin award'" is also attempting > to refer to the past, thus avoids any such problems. (I suspect that > some past CFJs have been accepted on similar grounds, even if the judge > hadn't consciously considered the alternative.) > > > Besides, this CFJ omits two elements (of enactment and repeal) that were > > decided in the previous CFJ, making it a different statement entirely. If > > the paradox arose from one of those elements, there would be no paradox > in > > this CFJ. > > Ah, because the previous statements were along the lines of "X was > enacted, did Y and was then repealed", and the judgement didn't make it > clear that "did Y" is where its paradox came from? (I suspect that it > did in fact make that clear, I'd have to go back and check though.) > I think all your arguments are correct (they have to be for me to win). That doesn't make them trivially correct, though. -- >From R. Lee
