I think it's reasonable for Kate's version of events. After all, how is this that different from any other ship of theseus, just with actions instead of values.
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024, 12:33 PM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2024-04-07 at 19:18 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via > agora-business wrote: > > On 07/04/2024 13:19, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > > I take Promise Q from the Library (using the "Any player CAN…" > > > mechanism in rule 2618). > > > > > > I transfer Promise Q from myself to Yachay. > > > > > > I take Promise Q from the Library (using the "Any player CAN…" > > > mechanism in rule 2618). > > > > > > I cash Promise Q. > > > > Gratuitous arguments: > > > > I was talking about this IRL with Gaelan earlier and we thought it > > worked, but now I'm working through it in more detail I can see exactly > > one internally consistent sequence of events: > > > > 1. Attempting to take Promise Q fails because ais523 is not going to > > cash it in the same message. > > > > 2. Attempting to transfer Promise Q fails because ais523 does not own it. > > > > 3. Attempting to take Promise Q fails because ais523 is not going to > > cash it in the same message. > > > > 4. Attempting to cash Promise Q fails because ais523 does not own it. > > > > But there's no reason you couldn't say points 3 and 4 about any normally > > taken-and-cashed promise that doesn't involve transferring it to someone > > else! And in that case there is another internally consistent sequence > > of events, i.e., that nothing failed and it worked entirely as intended. > > > > So I wonder if ais523 has hit on the exactly one class of sequences of > > actions to do with the Library that does *not* cause a paradox. > > > > Just for completeness... > > > > I grant the Library a promise with the text "This promise is > > irrevocable. I intend, without objection, to Declare Apathy, specifying > > myself." I take the promise, whose creator is myself, from the Library, > > and cash it. > > > > CFJ: "There exists a tabled immature intent, sponsored by me, to Declare > > Apathy." > > Gratuitous: In the case of your example, although there might be two > consistent readings (and I'm not sure yours even works – the wording > "provided that" seems to contradict it), this is (at best) simply an > ambiguity rather than any sort of paradox, and can be resolved by rule > 217. I think all the rule 217 tests point strongly towards the promise > actually being taken (given that with the other possible reading, the > Library wouldn't work at all, which defies common sense, is counter to > game custom, and is against the best interests of the game – there are > also past judgements about the Tree (e.g. CFJ 3313), the predecessor of > the Library). > > I also don't think the situation is any different in my case, just > because the ambiguity can be resolved in an unintended way to produce a > consistent reading; "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" (R217), and in particular, that > the natural/intended reading of the rule produces a paradox does not > imply that the "the Tree does nothing" reading is any more correct for > my cashing attempts than it is for yours. > > -- > ais523 >
