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
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 ite
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 b
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
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
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
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
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 b
>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 fro
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 patc
10 matches
Mail list logo
