Re: [s-d] [s-b] Administrator's Report 8E.2.9 — Ballot

[0x44 <bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > 2-8     comex
> >  AGAINST
>
> Any particular reason?
>

If 2-3, 2-7, and 2-8 all pass we will have three different mechanisms by
which we can resolve retrocausal activities. Proposal 2-8 adds scoring to
the Everett Branch concept of 2-3, but without a common reference they
conflict and that conflict means that 2-8 will fork-bomb the Administrator
for any retrocausal action we take, and since they conflict it doesn't
provide a mechanism for collapsing topologically identical game-states.
Proposal 2-8 also directly breaks the retrocausality solution presented in
2-7. If 2-7 becomes PASSED, retroactive proposals within B(1-7)(1-11)
overwrite the existing gamestate which 2-8 breaks. If 2-8 fails to become
PASSED this nweek, and either of 2-3 or 2-7 do… if 2-8 is resubmitted in a
non-conflicting way, I'd be happy to vote FOR.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss