DIS: Re: BUS: (@Notary, Arbitor) A Broken Promise

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 7, 2024, at 1:19 PM, ais523 via agora-business 
> <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> I call for judgement on the statement "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q,
> either by directly cashing it, or by transferring it from the Library
> to emself and then cashing it."
> 
> I call for judgement on the statement "I CAN cash the promise
> 'Awakening’."

Nice one!

Gratuitous arguments:

My main question is how this interacts with R2576/3, which states:

{
An asset "in abeyance" is one whose owner is nonexistent, indeterminate,
or invalid. If an asset would otherwise be in abeyance, then it is owned
by the Lost and Found Department (if possible) or destroyed (otherwise),
subject to modification by its backing document (provided that the
modification either destroys it or prevents it from being in abeyance).
}

Rule 2518/1 explicitly states that paradoxical information is
indeterminate. Thus, if Promise Q was still exists (and the paradox
generally works as you describe), the gamestate is clear: it’s owned
by the L&FD, and your first CFJ is unambiguously FALSE.

But - here’s the tricky bit - R2576/3 does not address the case where
an asset’s *existence* is paradoxical. If you paradoxically semi-owned
the promise when you attempted to cash it, then both Promise Q and
Awakening paradoxically semi-exist, and your second CFJ is PARADOXICAL.

So the question is: when, precisely, did Promise Q’s ownership become
paradoxical? If happened after your third action (the second transfer),
then by the time you attempted to cash the promise, it was owned by the
L&FD and the cashing attempt was a straightforward failure. But if the
paradox only takes shape after the entirety of your message, then you
could have still semi-cashed the promise while it was in an
indeterminate state, causing the two promises to semi-exist.

Gaelan