Mostly just throwing fuel on the fire and poking things, for fun :) (That's why I'm not objecting officially.)
Firstly, "Ownership" takes precedence (by power) over "Promises", and the actions happen in sequence, so Ownership takes precedence over Promises which attempts to change the owner of the promise. Whether or not the promise is cashed happens later in the sequence - even if the promise itself were to affect a switch or other gamestate when it was cashed, those switches would equally just become "indeterminate", thereby not producing a paradox, as no gamestate becomes undefined, the gamestate instead obtains "indeterminate" values, which are equally valid values that do not produce paradoxes. For example, even with Rice Plans, per "Switches", all the switches would have a definitive value of the last value they had had, or their default value. Agora requires clarity at all steps to function, and indeterminacy can set things in the platonic gamestate backwards, even if you don't notice, relying instead on ratification to operate. Not sure this is anything, but I also just noticed, [R217] "in particular, an absurdity [the paradox] that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false [the promise being taken or cashed] does not constitute proof that it is true." (Also of note: It is up to the Judge and the players what the CFJ outcome should be. This is not a platonic point, rather, it is subjective and open to persuasion and such. Therefore, this case can still be judged Paradoxical, even if no paradoxes are involved. Similarly, a CFJ with a paradox can be judged as not-Paradoxical.) On Tue, Apr 30, 2024 at 10:06 AM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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 > -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
