Wooble wrote:
On Dec 1, 2007 11:35 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wooble wrote:
5339 D0 2 Murphy Andre's degree
AGAINST [Suber's Rule 211 solves this paradox, contrary to the thesis'
assertion that no change to the rules could deal with it effectively]
Disagree. Suber's Rule 211 only addresses M-M and I-I
conflicts. Andre's thesis examines the analogue of Suber's
Rule 110 (an I rule saying that M-I is always won by I), and
hypothesizes a M rule saying that M-I is always won by M.
I wasn't talking about the precedence based on mutability; Rule 211
specifically solves all such possible paradoxes by making all such
chains of claims of precedence moot by giving precedence explicitly to
the rule with the lowest ordinal number in cases where rules claim
precedence over one another. If a rule with a number higher than 110
conflicts with 110 and 110 says that it takes precedence, it does.
That depends on whether you interpret Rule 211 paragraph 3 as breaking
out of the context set by paragraph 1. I don't. And even if you do,
it's trivial to adapt Andre's work to deal with Rule 211:
Hypothetical Mutable Rule 1211
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or
more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the
highest ordinal number takes precedence.
(paragraphs 2 and 3 are identical to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule 211)
