On Thu, 2019-03-07 at 09:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> No, the paradox is something like:
> 
> 1.  Purported resolution message from Assessor;
> 2.  CoE:  this Proposal was never distributed so wasn't adopted.
> 
> In terms of the truth value of the CoE, if it is true (wasn't adopted) then
> it is false (it was distributed, therefore adopted).  A CFJ on whether the
> Assessor can legally deny the CoE (given No Faking) may meet the win
> condition.

The proposal /was/ distributed, though. It's just that its adoption
changed the gamestate as though it wasn't.

Denying the CoE constitutes a claim that the proposal was distributed.
Well, it /was/ distributed! A change to the gamestate as though the
distribution were IMPOSSIBLE doesn't change the fact that it actually
happened.

Think about it this way: suppose a proposal is puportedly distributed
in an impossible way, nobody notices, the Assessment remains unCOEd for
a week, so the fact that the Agoran decision on whether to adopt it
existed ends up self-ratifying. Creating the Agoran decision on whether
to adopt a proposal is distribution, so in the resulting gamestate,
either the proposal was distributed, or else a decision about whether
to adopt it existed without ever having been created. If we take the
former condition, we now have a gamestate in which the proposal was
distributed, despite it having been IMPOSSIBLE to do so. I don't see
any real issue here; "event X couldn't possibly have happened, but
happened anyway" is fairly minor as contradictions go (especially as
the rules care about what happened, not what could have happened).

After the proposal retroactively makes its own distribution impossible,
we end up with exactly the same sort of gamestate; there's no way that
the proposal could have been distributed, but it's nonetheless a
historical fact that it was distributed. The adoption of the proposal
destroys the decision about whether to adopt it (because the decision
existed beforehand, and the proposal attempted to change the gamestate
to a state where it wouldn't have), but it's too late; the decision's
already been resolved by that point. Meanwhile, the gamestate
recalculation isn't recursive; the proposal doesn't attempt to undo its
own adoption process, because we're recalculating based on the
gamestate immediately before the adoption of the proposal, and then
applying all the changes atomically in a single batch.

-- 
ais523

Reply via email to