Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Correction: the rules allow you to create a new VOIDED section. Nomic Wars does not say that I can create a new Voided Section by announcement, which might become a Section. Rather, it says that I can create a Section, and *another section* says that such newly created Sections have no effect. But every newly created section becomes one of the class of things that govern the nomic, a class whose authority comes from itself. > Would anyone take it seriously if the US Congress passed a law stating > that their legislation took precedence over the US Constitution, which > was now void? Well, if you want to make the analogy, the Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land", and gives power to federal and state laws only to the extent that it itself permits, just as Agora gives power to contracts; but this power does not include the ability to take precedence over the Constitution and the Rules, respectively. (See Article 1, Section 8). Giving a contract certain powers is very different than making a Rule and then trying to restrict it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would anyone take it seriously if the US Congress passed a law stating > that their legislation took precedence over the US Constitution, which > was now void? Possibly these people: http://www.buildfreedom.com/language/delusion_1.html http://www.buildfreedom.com/language/delusion_2.html -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 13:31, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have a set of things called Rules, but they could be renamed to > Regulations without ceasing to be in effect; yet if I make a set of > things known to > Agora as Regulations, through a contract, they cannot govern the > gamestate. So clearly the gamestate is defined in relation to a class > of entities, those entities being the Rules; they can define new > entities to be Rules, or existing Rules to no longer be Rules. But > there is a boundary between Rules and not-Rules; and we are agreeing > to the Rules as a whole. In Nomic Wars, the Rules are Sections; and > certainly the existing Sections allowed me to create a new Section. > Correction: the rules allow you to create a new VOIDED section. > If we use the former "meta-interpretation", then there is no paradox. > When my Section was enacted, the Sections collectively said that > higher-Rating takes precedence over higher-Rating, so for an instant, > the old definition remains and the Section is void. But then, that > instant, because the Section is void, it cannot override the normal > precedence Sections; so they take effect for interpretation of the > contract at the *next* instant. etc... > Would anyone take it seriously if the US Congress passed a law stating that their legislation took precedence over the US Constitution, which was now void? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 2:09 PM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you want to, say "I can do anything by announcement; this sentence > takes precedence over the laws of physics." and see what happens. Hmm. When we agree to the rules of a nomic, what are we really agreeing to-- what thing defines the game being played? We have a set of things called Rules, but they could be renamed to Regulations without ceasing to be in effect; yet if I make a set of things known to Agora as Regulations, through a contract, they cannot govern the gamestate. So clearly the gamestate is defined in relation to a class of entities, those entities being the Rules; they can define new entities to be Rules, or existing Rules to no longer be Rules. But there is a boundary between Rules and not-Rules; and we are agreeing to the Rules as a whole. In Nomic Wars, the Rules are Sections; and certainly the existing Sections allowed me to create a new Section. The Rules of nomics purport to define their own interpretation-- how is that possible? I could make up a language, interpreted in which the Rules say that they are, in fact, written in that language; but again, that would not be Agora. There are at least two options. One is an infinite "interpretation loop", where we constantly interpret the Rules based on how the Rules an instant ago said that we should interpret them, and at the beginning of the game everyone agreed on how the initial Rules should be interpreted. But another is that we allow the Rules to be governed by a higher authority with respect to interpretation, like any other game. Only what the Rules right now say should be taken into account; this leads to multiple self-consistent interpretations: the interpretation in English, the interpretation in made-up-language-in-which-the-rules-say-comex-wins-the-game. We pick the most reasonable: what defines reasonableness? The higher and external authority of game custom. If we use the former "meta-interpretation", then there is no paradox. When my Section was enacted, the Sections collectively said that higher-Rating takes precedence over higher-Rating, so for an instant, the old definition remains and the Section is void. But then, that instant, because the Section is void, it cannot override the normal precedence Sections; so they take effect for interpretation of the contract at the *next* instant. etc... But in the latter, there is: game custom does not go so far as to dictate a method of determining precedence among Agoran Rules or Nomic Wars Sections, so there are two self-consistent interpretations among which we have no way of selecting.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>
>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>> {
>> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
>> Ratings; Sections of this contract whose Rating is a positive integer
>> are void and do not apply.
>> }
>>
> Assuming this in fact does not work I believe this is also invalid due
> to Section 17, as the rule composes two sentences. Judge comex, your
> opinion?
It uses a semicolon, not a period, so technically it's a single
compound sentence.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:01 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming >> into power like that are unbreakably strong. > > How strong? Presently there are two self-consistent interpretations > of the Nomic Wars contract-- the original Sections claim that mine has > no effect, but mine claims that they have no effect-- with no text in > the contract itself that would select either one over the other. There are two self-consistent interpretations of Agora's ruleset: that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a player, and that she is not. After all, the rules never say whether she is or not, and Rule 217 doesn't offer much guidance. Therefore, to determine whether she is a player or not, we must look to see whether she ever *became* a player. She did not, so she is not a player. Likewise, as you point out, there are two self-consistent interpretations of the contract: that the original rules are in effect, and that the new rule is in effect. The contract offers no guidance as to which is the case. Therefore, to determine which rules are in effect, we must look to see whether the new rule ever took effect. It did not, so it is not in effect. If you want to, say "I can do anything by announcement; this sentence takes precedence over the laws of physics." and see what happens. --Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming >> into power like that are unbreakably strong. > > How strong? Presently there are two self-consistent interpretations > of the Nomic Wars contract-- the original Sections claim that mine has > no effect, but mine claims that they have no effect-- with no text in > the contract itself that would select either one over the other. > > (For anyone who hasn't seen it: > http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/ProblematicPrecedenceThesis > ) I agree wholeheartedly for a standalone nomic. But one must ask: 1. Would Agoran custom transfer over to the contract since the contract is binding in Agora. 2. Since Contracts are governed more pragmatically and for equity would this also lead to an Agoran Custom decision? 3. Or does the "spirit of the particular contract" clearly say we should treat it as a standalone nomic and embrace all the paradoxes etc that leads to. Really, subnomics and equity-style contracts are two very different things in concept, and it's awkward to fit the assumptions of one into another. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 10:48 AM, ihope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming > into power like that are unbreakably strong. How strong? Presently there are two self-consistent interpretations of the Nomic Wars contract-- the original Sections claim that mine has no effect, but mine claims that they have no effect-- with no text in the contract itself that would select either one over the other. (For anyone who hasn't seen it: http://www.nomic.net/~nomicwiki/index.php/ProblematicPrecedenceThesis )
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I join Nomic Wars I.
I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
{
Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
Ratings; Sections of this contract whose Rating is a positive integer
are void and do not apply.
}
>>> Hmmcouldn't the same thing be done in Agora?
>>
>> No. This, presumably, is the reason for R1482's second paragraph.
>
> Even without that, R217 would likely save us with its "game custom" clause.
Even without that, the arguments against things spontaneously coming
into power like that are unbreakably strong.
--Ivan Hope CXXVII
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>>
>>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>>> {
>>> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
>>> Ratings; Sections of this contract whose Rating is a positive integer
>>> are void and do not apply.
>>> }
>>>
>> Hmmcouldn't the same thing be done in Agora?
>
> No. This, presumably, is the reason for R1482's second paragraph.
Even without that, R217 would likely save us with its "game custom" clause.
-root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A case of problematic precedence
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:08, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 17:56, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I join Nomic Wars I.
>>
>> I add the following section to Nomic Wars I:
>> {
>> Sections with lower Ratings take precedence over sections with higher
>> Ratings; Sections of this contract whose Rating is a positive integer
>> are void and do not apply.
>> }
>>
> Hmmcouldn't the same thing be done in Agora?
No. This, presumably, is the reason for R1482's second paragraph.
-woggle
