Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When X does not exist independently of the rules. What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When X does not exist independently of the rules. What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.? If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule defines a property of X. In either case, repealing the rule does not cause X to cease to exist.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule defines a property of X. In either case, repealing the rule does not cause X to cease to exist. How exactly does a Rule lie? By erecting a legal fiction for the duration of its effect. If such a Rule were to be enacted and then subsequently repealed, a Judge could quite reasonably conclude that X no longer exists, since the Rules say so. And so on... Possibly. You could register and test it for real.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent, i.e. use its old definition. I just noticed that Rule 1586 explicitly prohibits such a course of action: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have ceased to exist. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: And like it or not, your argument implies an ordering. Your argument implies that Unanimity has an ordering E where E is less than any positive rational number. No it does not. My argument is that Unanimity is unordered with respect to any real number. So Unanimity is greater than 1 is false, and Unanimity is not greater than 1 is also false. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Unanimity is less than or equal to 1 is false. Tell that to Mrs. Slocum. We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have ceased to exist. Protoproposal: Poof! Create a rule with the following text: Zefram is a Player. Repeal the Rule just created. This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules. If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules. If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X? When X does not exist independently of the rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Taral wrote: Zefram is a Player. Repeal the Rule just created. I was wondering what would happen if we created and then repealed a rule along the lines of This Rule defines the Earth. The Earth is a planet approximately 40 Mm in circumference, orbiting the yellow dwarf star Sol at a distance of approximately 150 Gm. The Earth is inhabited by a species of intelligent bipeds. I think it would either create a legal fiction that the Earth (and humans) had vanished, or have no effect due to the Earth's independent physical existence. The concept of unanimity, that is of agreement without exception, has an independent existence, but its former numerical property does not. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
On 1/11/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 1/11/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: H. Clerk of the Courts, I hereby Call for Judgement on the statement: Rule 955 should be interpreted such a voting index of Unanimity cannot meet or exceed any numerical adoption index. Unanimity is no longer defined anywhere in the Rules, so I think it no longer has any numerical properties. It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? How could you justify that? If something loses its definition then its properties are unknown. In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete that object, the pointer now points to who knows what. In our case here the pointer - Unanimity - pointed to a definition - exceeding any numerical adoption index - yet when that was deleted any references to Unanimity refer to something with now undefined properties.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? How could you justify that? If something loses its definition then its properties are unknown. In programming if you have a pointer pointing to an object, and you delete that object, the pointer now points to who knows what. In our case here the pointer - Unanimity - pointed to a definition - exceeding any numerical adoption index - yet when that was deleted any references to Unanimity refer to something with now undefined properties. The rules aren't a computer program. Clearly, the definition isn't simply lost to the world as your metaphor would suggest. After all, I can still see it in the archives. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Taral wrote: It retains the properties it had when it was last defined, no? Certainly not. Game custom has never supported definitions outliving their repeal. The meaning of the formerly-defined term reverts to whatever it would be if the definition had never existed. In this case, Unanimity has a meaning from ordinary English, which I believe now prevails, but that meaning has no numerical aspect. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Kerim Aydin wrote: judge would be allowed to fall back on game custom and precedent, i.e. use its old definition. Its old definition was not game custom, it was a Rule. The precedent of using that definition also does not apply, because a highly relevant aspect of the preceding situation has changed (i.e., the definition has been repealed). If you want to ressurect the old definition then reenact it. You can't ignore a repeal just because it's turned out to be inconvenient. -zefram
