On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > 1. Doesn't everything paradoxical include some degree of self-reference? > Even the first one (was due to retroactivity, but was a retroactive > cancellation of itself)?
Perhaps explicit self-reference should be needed, but generally, this isn't true. The intent of a Paradox win is to discover a logical contradiction inherent in the rules, and I think that simply winning by discovering a point where someone can introduce arbitrary self-reference (and by extension, paradox) is not the intent. > 2. I think it *is* the point. The reason self-reference worked here is > because, in legislating conditional Promises, we didn't add "any condition > that is self-referential simply fails", like we do for conditional votes. > That was legislative error[*]. It's good to point out such legislative error > through wins (and exploiting legislative mistakes is one whole point of > nomic, right?) Mentioned above. > 3. I think instead we should get rid of "hypothetical" win conditions. > Basically, if you can set it up "for real" you should get it, but just > saying "If ABC were true, then it would be undecided" shouldn't be enough. In support of this as well. -scshunt
