Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 23:36, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
> > > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so
> > even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the
> > pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be
> > DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know
> > whether the report is accurate.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
>
> Yeah, I agree that it's a bit weak as paradoxes go. The reason I did it with
> pledges is that a conditional _action_ ("if and only if the CFJ statement is
> FALSE, I [move my Spaceship]") would simply have failed, per the precedent in
> CFJ 1215.
>
> As far as the timing of the CFJ goes, I don't believe it matters when the
> pledges were made. The "legal situation at the time the [CFJ] was initiated"
> already explicitly depends on the gamestate on Judgement Day, because that
> gamestate determines whether it was POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE to levy the fine
> for inaccurately reporting it. All the pledges do is provide evidence about
> what the gamestate will be. I concede that they are not as convincing as if I
> actually had conditionally performed the actions, but again, I don't think
> that would work. So this is my best shot, and it may miss, but at least I
> tried.
>
> Another possible interpretation is that the judge has to take into account
> the legal situation at the time the CFJ was initiated, but *also* must not
> take into account the future gamestate. I don't think it's possible to do
> both of those things at once... so I'm not sure how Rule 591 would operate.
> Perhaps _none_ of the given options would be valid, not even DISMISS?
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> I'm reminded of CFJ 3737, which Trigon recused emself from because it was
> ILLEGAL to judge it correctly. That was a fun case.
>
> -twg
With your second interpretation, DISMISS seems valid, since R591 says
it's "appropriate if ...the statement is otherwise not able to be
answered with another valid judgement". If that's correct, I find this
interpretation appealing since it seems consistent with the use of
DISMISS for situations where "insufficient information exists", even
if it turns out that's not the legal reason to use DISMISS in this
case.
--
- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
> > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
> Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so
> even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the
> pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be
> DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know
> whether the report is accurate.
>
> --
> - Falsifian
Yeah, I agree that it's a bit weak as paradoxes go. The reason I did it with
pledges is that a conditional _action_ ("if and only if the CFJ statement is
FALSE, I [move my Spaceship]") would simply have failed, per the precedent in
CFJ 1215.
As far as the timing of the CFJ goes, I don't believe it matters when the
pledges were made. The "legal situation at the time the [CFJ] was initiated"
already explicitly depends on the gamestate on Judgement Day, because that
gamestate determines whether it was POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE to levy the fine for
inaccurately reporting it. All the pledges do is provide evidence about what
the gamestate will be. I concede that they are not as convincing as if I
actually had conditionally performed the actions, but again, I don't think that
would work. So this is my best shot, and it may miss, but at least I tried.
Another possible interpretation is that the judge has to take into account the
legal situation at the time the CFJ was initiated, but *also* must not take
into account the future gamestate. I don't think it's possible to do both of
those things at once... so I'm not sure how Rule 591 would operate. Perhaps
_none_ of the given options would be valid, not even DISMISS? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'm reminded of CFJ 3737, which Trigon recused emself from because it was
ILLEGAL to judge it correctly. That was a fun case.
-twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On 9/2/2019 6:34 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the >> case until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future >> self's report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? > > The judge is instructed to "not [take] into account any events since > [the time the inquiry was called]", so as I understand it, the passing > of Judgement Day shouldn't affect the judgement of a CFJ called before > Judgement Day. Maybe. Evidence about past events, revealed after the CFJ, can certainly be taken into account. For example, in a case that involved a SHA-256 hash a few months ago, I sent the previously-unrevealed plaintext to the judge after the CFJ was called, and no one worried about that. In this case the line between "evidence" and "events after the CFJ" is quite a blurry one of course... (also, not gonna game this, I'll assign it in the next day or two). -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case > until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's > report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? The judge is instructed to "not [take] into account any events since [the time the inquiry was called]", so as I understand it, the passing of Judgement Day shouldn't affect the judgement of a CFJ called before Judgement Day. -- - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 9/2/19 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are > > currently in a superposition of having been brought to justice and having > > been exonerated. I'm trying to win by paradox. > > > > It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case > > until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's > > report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? > > > > -twg > > > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for. > > -- > Jason Cobb Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know whether the report is accurate. -- - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On 9/2/19 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are currently in a superposition of having been brought to justice and having been exonerated. I'm trying to win by paradox. It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? -twg I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe
On Monday, September 2, 2019 8:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Notice of Honour: > > +1 twg for bringing that criminal scum officer to justice > > -1 Jason Cobb for trying to create chaos > > > -- > Jason Cobb Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are currently in a superposition of having been brought to justice and having been exonerated. I'm trying to win by paradox. It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...? -twg
