> On Mar 7, 2019, at 12:28 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
> <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Before this proposal, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Gaelan to declare victory by apathy 
and therefore the “fact” is that e didn’t do so. The proposal, if ADOPTED, 
would change the “fact” of whether that happened—that’s the whole point of 
retroactivity. 

By the very same reasoning, the ADOPTION of the proposal should also change the 
POSSIBILITY of its distribution and also the “fact” of its distribution. 

> 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. 

In this example, ratification of the assessment changes the “fact” of whether 
the proposal was distributed. The distribution was IMPOSSIBLE and originally it 
didn’t happen, but upon ratification it is retroactively deemed to have 
EFFECTIVELY happened. The ratification changes the “fact” of the distribution 
from false to true. 

> 
> 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.

That would be true if Proposal 8164 had been resolved ADOPTED and that 
resolution had self-ratified. If that had happened, the paradox would be 
ratified out of existence and the fact of distribution would be established by 
ratification. 

But that hasn’t happened. 

The paradox then arises because Proposal 8164 changes the gamestate to what it 
would have been if intents worked in the past.  That changes the “fact” of 
whether Gaelan won by apathy. It also changes the “fact” of whether the 
proposal was EFFECTIVELY distributed. 

So after that “fact” changes, a CoE needs to be granted because there was no 
distribution, except that granting the CoE is also wrong, because it would undo 
itself. 

> 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.

It has been resolved, but it is not final because it can be CoE’d. And the 
result of the CoE is paradoxical I think. 

> 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.

I’m not sure why that would be true. The adoption of the proposal changes the 
“fact” of its distribution and thereby destroys a condition precedent to its 
own adoption. And until ratification, a player can raise a CoE that says one of 
the conditions precedent to ADOPTION is lacking. 

Reply via email to