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

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

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

On Sat, 27 May 2017, Martin Rönsch wrote: This is because the principle of explosion is a characteristic specific to classic first order predicate logic and it's extensions. Actually you just need propositional logic, and intuitionistic is enough. not A =def= A -> False False -> B are

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

Am 27.05.2017 um 13:51 schrieb Alex Smith: On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 11:10 +0200, Martin Rönsch wrote: If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see

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

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

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

On 05/27/2017 09:10 AM, Nic Evans wrote: There was a short-lived nomic that was loosely based of Agora's rules, including the power system, called nommit. I should point out that if you search for 'nommit' you'll find a subreddit. That's where the game I'm thinking of was played, but

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

It might be interesting to start a Nomic in which rules are expressed through a formal logic and that is grounded in a solid logical foundation. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 27, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Nic Evans wrote: > > On

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

On 05/27/2017 04:10 AM, Martin Rönsch wrote: I don't think the rules specify what kind of logic the game uses, so in order to get to Explosion you'd have to argue that Agora's logic is first order predicate logic by default. If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I

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

On Sat, 2017-05-27 at 11:10 +0200, Martin Rönsch wrote: > If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know  > nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical calculus  > from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether Explosion is  > necessary to make it

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

Am 27.05.2017 um 06:36 schrieb Nic Evans: On 05/26/2017 10:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: 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

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

On 05/26/2017 10:24 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: 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"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>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

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

On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote: I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is an option. Moreover, the Principle of Explosion is the quintessence of what Rule 217's second paragraph is meant to forbid. Greetings, Ørjan.

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

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

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

I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is an option. 天火狐 On 26 May 2017 at 22:32, Nicholas Evans wrote: > More like guidelines, and generally newer overrides older. > > On May 26, 2017 9:30 PM, "CuddleBeam" wrote: >

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

More like guidelines, and generally newer overrides older. On May 26, 2017 9:30 PM, "CuddleBeam" wrote: > Would this be a valid way to scam? > > Or are CFJs more like guidelines? >