Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
Well, e probably succeeded in solving the past power problem. E doesn’t seem to have succeeded with preventing retroaction though. -Aris On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 10:50 PM omd wrote: > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote: > > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread omd
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:57 PM James Cook wrote: > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > > compelling in the face

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Hm, maybe in the hypothetical timeline the act of publishing can be thought of as performative, so it's by definition correct. At least, that's how I think of messages that successfully cause actions to be performed. Still thinking about CFJ retroactivity though. On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:36

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact instant if

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
Ahh, yes, that is embarrassing. The accuracy of the report is rather the entire point of the case. I got so caught up in the question of how the retroactivity worked out that I forgot the actual object of the case. My apologies. -Aris On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:22 PM James Cook wrote: > Wasn't

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though... On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote: > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the > reports? > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, < >

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the reports? On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter? > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread Aris Merchant
Why would the legality of publishing the report matter? -Aris On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote: > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false > at that exact time. > >

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false at that exact time. Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I think we are in the same place anyway. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote: > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D. > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D. Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document. E said: > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the > time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019: But there is no mechanism for em to do

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and forward. Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely: > To understand the

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > > tried to think of a couple

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this: > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context. > > Rule 217 forbids us from applying

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Aris Merchant
The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense. -Aris On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread] > > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): I'm guessing R1551's complex

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
[Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread] I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. You write in 7A: "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to the past, then these

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant wrote: > I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own > understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical, > well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider > this a well-written

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a reply to Charles Walker. On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. > > You write: > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. You write: "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense." This seems to run

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Charles Walker
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:59, James Cook wrote: > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on > 3726 a couple of times. Thanks for an interesting judgement--a good way for me to get back into the game. My instinct was that 3726 is TRUE, along the line of argument that you

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread Aris Merchant
I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical, well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly amazing. I’m

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Oops, thanks, updated. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could > > be doubt about this. >

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Thanks, noted. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget > a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :) > > Jason Cobb > > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote: > > >

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could be doubt about this. 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :) Jason Cobb On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote: > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on > 3726 a couple