Goethe wrote:
> pre-judicial reform and pre-MMI, the SHOULD has been implied in
> judgement for a long time. Why did Murphy's game-winning paradox
> work then?
Because there was a reasonably equal amount of evidence in favor
of each hypothetical gamestate.
Also, the pre-reform implication was a
On 2/27/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not judged FALSE -> a delivered judgement by BobTHJ is legal ->
> BobTHJ judged legally -> Judged FALSE.
>
> so A-> !A -> A -> !A ...
I contest the first implication. Not judged FALSE is not the same as
judged TRUE. It may be that BobTHJ simp
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> But the fact that it was not judged depended on the judgement that
>> BobTHJ delivered.
>
> It depends on BobTHJ's possibly-judgement being accurate, which is quite
> independent of whether it's a judgement.
Ok, I finally see my error. T
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But the fact that it was not judged depended on the judgement that
>BobTHJ delivered.
It depends on BobTHJ's possibly-judgement being accurate, which is quite
independent of whether it's a judgement.
-zefram
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> not judged FALSE -> a delivered judgement by BobTHJ is legal
>
> I disagree with this link in the chain. If the CFJ was not judged
> FALSE by BobTHJ, it only implies that the CFJ
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>So to return to the point, I'm saying that IF a "correct and reasonable"
>argument is given that disqualifies the judge giving it, THEN we have
>paradox in game terms, such that "Did person A deliver legal judgement B?"
>is UNDECIDABLE, and thus a winning play.
That's not grou
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> not judged FALSE -> a delivered judgement by BobTHJ is legal
I disagree with this link in the chain. If the CFJ was not judged
FALSE by BobTHJ, it only implies that the CFJ has not yet been judged.
It certainly does not
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> But this is all beside the point. The question on paradox is: does the
>> *formal system* contain a paradox by its own internal logic?
>
> The formal system does not claim that judgements are necessarily correct,
> so no.
We've lost the
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>But this is all beside the point. The question on paradox is: does the
>*formal system* contain a paradox by its own internal logic?
The formal system does not claim that judgements are necessarily correct,
so no.
-zefram
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> If upheld, it requires us to act "as if it were" false.
>
> No it doesn't. There's no legal fiction there. It "SHOULD guide future
> play", but if judgements are in conflict then that's a pretty good reason
> to contravene that recommend
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>If upheld, it requires us to act "as if it were" false.
No it doesn't. There's no legal fiction there. It "SHOULD guide future
play", but if judgements are in conflict then that's a pretty good reason
to contravene that recommendation.
> Wheth
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If upheld, it requires us to act "as if it were" false. That's the same
> thing within our formal system. Whether or not it "is" false is not worth
> mooting outside of the judicial system.
Rule 591 says the judgement S
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Taral wrote:
> On 2/27/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Judged FALSE -> not judgement -> not judged FALSE
>>
>> Any A -> !A sure seems like a paradox to me!
>
> Only if !A -> A as well...
Sorry I left that part out for cleanliness:
not judged FALSE -> a deliver
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Judged FALSE -> not judgement -> not judged FALSE
>
> As I pointed out, judging it FALSE doesn't cause the statement to
> be false. Hence your "Judged FALSE -> not judgement" step is faulty.
If upheld, it requires us to act "as if it we
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> It's a paradox if FALSE remains/is upheld, because it self-nullifies
>> BobTHJ's ability to judge.
>
> No it bloody doesn't. It's either not a judgement or an incorrect
> judgement.
Judged FALSE -> not judgement -> not judged FALSE
Any
On 2/27/08, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Judged FALSE -> not judgement -> not judged FALSE
>
> Any A -> !A sure seems like a paradox to me!
Only if !A -> A as well...
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you."
-- Unknown
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Judged FALSE -> not judgement -> not judged FALSE
As I pointed out, judging it FALSE doesn't cause the statement to
be false. Hence your "Judged FALSE -> not judgement" step is faulty.
-zefram
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>It's a paradox if FALSE remains/is upheld, because it self-nullifies
>BobTHJ's ability to judge.
No it bloody doesn't. It's either not a judgement or an incorrect
judgement.
-zefram
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Hmm, you're right, but it misses my reason for proposing this. Even if
>> resolved de novo (which I agree works fine), it's still a paradox,
>> subject to Win.
>
> I'm confused. Where's the paradox?
It's a paradox if FALSE remains/is u
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Hmm, you're right, but it misses my reason for proposing this. Even if
>resolved de novo (which I agree works fine), it's still a paradox,
>subject to Win.
I'm confused. Where's the paradox?
-zefram
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> The appropriate response to conflicting judgements, including where the
> judgements are on their own validity, is a fresh CFJ to decide the issue
> de novo in an ontologically unequivocal manner.
Hmm, you're right, but it misses my reason for proposing this.
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> The CotC CAN, without 2 objections, ratify the fact that a
> particular case has been legally assigned a particular judgement
> and set of arguments.
Judicial question, not case. Reference to the arguments is superfluous.
>The judgement and arguments
Proto, a Paradox, a Paradox, for February 29. AI-2.
--
[Is there a rule to append this on instead of making it a
separate rule? Wording improvements greatly appreciated]
Create the following rule, AI-2, entitled "No Judicial Para
23 matches
Mail list logo
