Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

I just realized that if Principle of Explosion could be used at some
moment, Agora would become senseless chaotic soup, even if I attempted to
use my Explosion powers to remove the contradiction and re-stabilize Agora.

Yeah, it can be provable that I can do anything, but:

It can also be provable that I can do nothing.

It would just be Special Pleading to choose the stuff that is more
convenient to me. Everything would be indeterminate and nothing could be
known forever, even if the rule of Ossification even exists now, in the
past, in the future, at some time that was before itself, up, down, right,
potato, bananas...

So the Explosion thing actually wouldn't work to my advantage (unless I'm
some kind of arsonist of abstract spaces) even if at some moment I could do
it.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

I personally picture Agora's (or any nomic's) "information-processing" to
be a sort of a sea of "axioms" which vary over time and whether you have
these axioms or those not depends on "where" you are, for example, who
judges your CFJs or who approaches to vote on other certain
"truth"-obtaining items ("truth" being simply a "tag" from a Platonic point
of view, we're never going to be truely Platonically Ideal because we're
suckass humans).

Since I imagine it to be "axiomatic" like that, I thought "well, there is
some combination of "axioms" which lets me pull the Principle of Explosion.
So I thought:

Am I at the right time and place for that to be be "true" in the nomic and
pull the trick?

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
> You used to be able to win by paradox - I think that got boring after a 
> while which is why it's gone - but two CFJs of the type you're talking 
> still wouldn't have met the bar for a win back then methinks.

We strictly barred CFJ-logic from paradox wins because they were trivial.
We started with this (R2110):

   If the legality of an action cannot be determined with finality,
   or if by a Judge's best reasoning, not appealed within a week of
   eir Judgement, an action appears equally legal and illegal, then
   the Speaker shall award the Patent Title of Champion to the
   first Player to publicly note that condition.  The Herald shall
   record that this Title was achieved "by paradox" in eir report.

This tied it to actions, trying to keep it from straight undecidable
CFJ statements.  It did lead to a CFJ-self-paradox win or two, so we
blocked a bunch of those trivial conditions by the end:

   A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of
   a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising
   from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of
   that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE.

   Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a
   tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks,
   the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox.

Probably a bit of ennui in getting rid of it; whenever a true gamestate
paradox comes up, I think you'll want it back, so you might want to bring 
it ahead of time...

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Quazie]

You used to be able to win by paradox - I think that got boring after a
while which is why it's gone - but two CFJs of the type you're talking
still wouldn't have met the bar for a win back then methinks.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 20:48 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence:
> >
> > So if I had:
> >
> > CFJ 1: A is True.
> > CFJ 2: A is False.
> >
> > I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just
> presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1.
> >
> > With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad
> absurdum (i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?)
>
> It would be just as if two people disagreed with each other, each
> asserting their opinion.  Then you moot one of them, and if it's
> upheld it's the guiding one, otherwise the other one is.
>
> Or, you could simply call CFJ 3.  We would go by the most recent one.
>
>
>

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence:
> 
> So if I had:
> 
> CFJ 1: A is True.
> CFJ 2: A is False.
> 
> I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just 
> presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1.
> 
> With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad absurdum 
> (i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?)

It would be just as if two people disagreed with each other, each
asserting their opinion.  Then you moot one of them, and if it's
upheld it's the guiding one, otherwise the other one is.

Or, you could simply call CFJ 3.  We would go by the most recent one.

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

OK so let me confirm to see if I get it and sorry for my insistence:

So if I had:

CFJ 1: A is True.
CFJ 2: A is False.

I can reductio ad absurdum (although a really short one) CFJ 1 by just
presenting CFJ 2, and CFJ 2 by presenting CFJ 1.

With that, I would be barred from deducing anything from those ad absurdum
(i.e. attempt to summon Principle of Explosion?)

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: 
> >Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 217's 
> >second paragraph is meant to forbid.
> 
> This, yes?
> 
>   Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
>   applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
>   absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
>   statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
>   constitute proof that it is true.  Definitions in lower-powered
>   Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
>   definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.
> 
> So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather how 
> the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?
> 
> I do honestly believe I need a better definition of the nature of CFJs too 
> though.

My personal thoughts, not everyone may agree:

CFJs are like house rules.  When the rules of a board game are unclear, there's
some general discussion about what's plausible, and eventually there's a 
decision
"well, let's interpret it this way."  It's good to be consistent (follow the
house rule once you've made it) because that's only fair in a game - so that's 
precedent.  But sometimes later on a contradiction comes up ("well if we made 
decision A, now later on it means we can't do B, so A must have been wrong").
Then you can decide to play like !A instead.  You might sometimes take back a
few moves as a result, back to a reasonable limit (for us, that's back to 
ratification).

If a situation comes up only once in a while, you might eventually forget the
old house rule, and the next time it comes up you make a different house rule.
That's fine.  Precedent fades.  And if the rules themselves are changing, 
sometimes you say - oh hey, that old house rule doesn't make sense, there's
an actual rule now.

In the middle of all this, if someone said "oh hey:  new house rule - there are
no house rules!" everyone would say, well that's silly, and dismiss the idea.

Also:  these are not too hard to spot in the CFJ archives, there's several.
I think it would be a REALLY INTERESTING THESIS for someone to do a
comparative study of some of the attempts over time.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 27 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?


No, it _is_ formal, but from logic. "Reductio ad absurdum" (reduction to 
the absurd) is the Latin term for proof by contradiction.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

>Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 217's 
>second paragraph is meant to forbid.

This, yes?

  Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
  applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
  absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
  statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
  constitute proof that it is true.  Definitions in lower-powered
  Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
  definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.

So, "absurdity" is not meant in a formal way (non sequitur) but rather
how the consequences of the application of laws of logic feels like?

I do honestly believe I need a better definition of the nature of CFJs
too though. I think Principle of Explosion would be extremely hard to
pull upon anything that has explicit hierarchy like the Ruleset, but
CFJs have no such explicit hierarchy, so I assume they're all at the
same level, so if there's contradiction, Principle of Explosion could
be summoned.

Unless CFJs themselves aren't to be considered really pure "Platonic"
items. Just official "Educated Guesses" on what is.

Re: Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[CuddleBeam]

I feel a lot less Platonist about Agora's formal space right now.

>I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is
an option.

Once two contradictory CFJs are found, why go back to DISMISS it?

Either:
1) The Principle of Explosion actually works and its an attempt to patch
it. In which case, it works anyway and you got god powers. How would trying
to go back and change it help?
2) The Principle of Explosion actually doesn't work. In which case, there
wouldn't be anything that actually merits a DISMISS in the first place, so
DISMISSING would be inappropriate, because there would be no actual target.

(Or do you mean DISMISSING a very obvious attempt to bait two contradictory
CFJs? Yeah, those cases would be easy to detect, I admit, but I don't see
how they could be DISMISSED. I meant more like contradictory CFJs created
by oversight which people don't notice and have gotten the TRUE/FALSE
stamps already a while ago)