On Tue, 2024-04-30 at 09:52 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-discussion wrote: > I object. > Per Rule 2576 "Ownership", the asset goes into abeyance as soon as the > owner is ambiguous. > The owner becomes ambiguous at step 2, wherein we are not sure if ais523 > can take the asset due to the ensuing contradiction. > Therefore, both CFJs should be FALSE, as neither party can cash a promise > that is in abeyance.
This argument assumes that the paradox has already occurred – if there were no paradox there would be no ambiguity. So this is a self- defeating line of reasoning: you're saying that the first transfer causes the promise's ownership to be ambiguous because it would cause a paradox, then that the second transfer unambiguously fails because the first transfer moved the promise to the L&FD – or in other words, this is an argument that says "if there were a paradox, that would cause there to not be a paradox". This doesn't lead to a consistent outcome because it requires a view of things in which the paradox both does and doesn't occur; it's just as self-contradictory as the scenarios in which the first transfer fails and in which the first transfer succeeds. (Or to think about it another way, Murphy has proved that if there were not a paradox, there would be a paradox, and you are arguing that if there were a paradox there would not be a paradox, and thus we have constructed a paradox as to whether there's a paradox!) -- ais523
