The below CFJ is 3879. I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3879
=============================== CFJ 3879 ===============================
After the first instant of the existence of the Supertask
Experiment Redux contract, Nathan is the owner of the first Dock
asset created by the Supertask Experiment Redux contract.
==========================================================================
Caller: Nathan
Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
==========================================================================
History:
Called by Nathan: 25 Aug 2020 18:21:12
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
Below, contained within the "{}", or curly braces, is the contract
entitled The Supertask Experiment Redux.
{
Name: The Supertask Experiment Redux
Parties: Nathan
Only Nathan may be a party to this contract. Nathan may not destroy this
contract. All actions in this contract happen under a "I say, I do,
therefore it happens" basis, meaning that all actions are taken instantly,
without implicitly advancing time. As the rules do not prohibit it, in
this contract, multiple actions may happen at the same time. Time does not
advance during this contract's effects unless explicitly stated by this
contract or the rules. This contract is capable of owning assets.
For the purposes of this contract, an instant is defined to be a specific
moment in time, with infinite instants in any given division or unit of
time. An example of an instant would be precisely 1.87856 seconds after
midnight on July 12, 1983. Any measurement of precise time can be
understood to be an instant. An instant can not cover more than a single
instance of precise time. For example, an instant can not be the entirety
of the second after midnight on July 12, 1983, but precisely one second
after midnight on July 12, 1983 can be understood to be an instant.
Multiple actions can resolve in the same instant. If an action starts and
resolves in the same instant, that action takes no time. Actions that
resolve in the same instant can be dependent upon prior actions in that
instant. For example, in the same announcement, one can transfer coins
from a locker or similar contract to themselves, and then perform an
action with those coins, both of those actions happening in the same
instant despite the second action being dependent on the first one.
Actions dependent on another action can be started and resolved at the
same instant as the action it is dependent on without passing time.
This contract and any parties to this contract consent to every transfer
of Dock assets.
A Dock asset is an asset with default owner Nathan. The class of entities
which can own a Dock asset is restricted to Nathan and this contract. If
the ownership of a Dock asset were to be transferred to the Lost and Found
Department, ownership is instead transferred to whoever most recently had
the Dock Asset, not including the Lost and Found Department. A Dock asset
can be transferred to this contract or any party to this contract. Consent
of parties to this contract or the consent of this contract itself is not
needed to transfer a Dock asset to this contract or to parties of this
contract. This contract can create a Dock asset at any instant.
Under rule 2577, "An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by
announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by
its backing document". This backing document for Dock assets specifies
that a Dock asset is transferred, without announcement, between any
players that consent to this contract and this contract if any non-zero
number of two conditions are met, with the specific transfer stated after
the condition. These conditions are:
1. If a dock asset is owned by Nathan. The Dock asset is transferred from
Nathan to this contract.
2. If a dock asset is owned by this contract. The Dock asset is
transferred from Nathan to this contract.
This contract creates one Dock asset.
}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Judge Pavitra's arguments in CFJ 2650 are a thesis-worthy discussion of
philosophy and "types" of paradox in Agora, and very much worth reading in
this context (should be part of a FAQ about paradoxes):
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2650
An example where this sort of thing did create a paradox, but the paradox
was error-trapped by the LF&D, can be found in CFJ 3254:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3254
A relevant finding in CFJ 3254: while Contracts might create internal
paradoxes, the gamestate is generally error-trapped against that by the
LF&D. So a key untested loophole for this case is that the error-trapping
clause in Rule 2576/2 might allow backing documents to modify/override
LF&D behavior, and maintain the indeterminacy:
> If an asset's owner would otherwise be nonexistent, indeterminate,
> or invalid, then it is owned by the Lost and Found Department (if
> possible) or destroyed (otherwise), subject to modification by its
> backing document.
==========================================================================
