Re: [s-d] [s-b] Gamestate collapse.

[Cassie Bayer <kisse.bnomic@xxxxxxxxx>]

2009/2/13 David E. Smith <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> >
> >
> > If the current arbitration/justice system is used to settle this
> question,
> > then they could not find that only the 2001 ruleset is in force,
> otherwise
> > they would have no authority to make such a finding. (A Paradox)
>
>
> Good point. Hope you folks have fun sorting it out :D
>

I can't sleep because this keeps bugging me.

There exists the true/false question "Is the pedantry of B Nomic such that
the original rule 32/0 states that no valid rules were passed?"

In order to resolve this question, the appropriate legal arbiter must be
chosen.  If the Oracle is the appropriate legal arbiter, e is obligated to
answer "false" else e would not be the appropriate legal arbiter.  If Dave
is the appropriate legal arbiter, e is obligated to answer "true" else e
would not be the appropriate legal arbiter.  It therefore follows that the
question must be answered before the appropriate legal arbiter can be
chosen.

The question begs itself and thus produces a fundamental paradox of game
play that is resolvable only by retroactively applying the original game
state.  However, by original Rule 18/0 no event may alter the past.  Since
logically retroactively applying the original game state is altering the
past, no such event may happen, and thus the fundamental paradox of game
play is only resolvable by a paradox, and thus is paradoxically
unresolvable.

Thus the game of B Nomic cannot exist at this time.

THANKS FOR DROPPING THE ATOMIC PARADOX BOMB RIGHT WHEN I JOIN PEOPLE!
*humpf*
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss