On Thu, Oct 5, 2023 at 3:49 PM juan via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> 4st nomic via agora-business [2023-10-04 13:17]: > > On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 1:22 PM juan via agora-business < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I push the boulder. > > > > > > -- > > > juan > > > > > > > CFJ: ais523 now owns 2 4st stamps. > > > > Arguments PARADOX: > > Per the temperature paradox: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_paradox > > > > A. The boulder's height was 1. > > B. The boulders height was increased by 1. > > C. 1 was increased by 1. > > That is stupid. Not your wonderful idea of throwing paradoxes at us! But > the paradox itself, I'm afraid, is stupid. > > It comes from the flawed premise that the intended formalization is > adequate. It's not. I don't think I need to get into why, do I? > > Also, what has that to do with stamps? > > -- > juan > I agree that it's stupid, but Agoran english can be stupid sometimes. Firstly, nowhere does it say the switch is flipped, instead it says that it's simply increased. A switch isn't an integer, so one assumption that we operate on is that the value of the switch is increased. (I thought we generally rejected this sort of thing though, because it didn't use the precise magic words) Secondly, we operate on the assumption that the value of the switch is independent from all other values, even when the value is a rules defined entity. OR we assume that Agoran Numbers are not Rule Defined entities, just rule defined somethings??? Like, if we had hats, and they had colors, and a player switch named "the witch", what would "the witch's hat is coloured blue" do? Would the player specified by the witch now have a blue hat? would a copy of a player get their hat colored blue? Or, if we said "1 is now 2", does that apply to all 1's, or just that one 1? This paradox gets at both of those stupid Agoran-English things, I think. -- 4ˢᵗ Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
