Eris wrote: > How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? I must have > missed that bit.
Oop, my misconstruction, it looked like in your original quote you were replying to this sentence: > Funny, that's exactly what I claimed when I said my deregistration > paradox couldn't be resolved by appeal. But y'all didn't buy the > logic then, and it seems to be resolved... -G. where the paradox was: Goethe judge -> Goethe !judge combined with: Goethe !judge -> Goethe judge and therefore I thought you were generalizing to all circular paradoxes, which is where I took issue. Still: > How do you get "PP is a not a person -> PP is a person"? It's actually route-dependent, depending on which CFJ is appealed to make the case (1622 or 1623): CFJ 1622: PP is a not a person -> CFJ 1622 "reversed" on appeal -> CFJ 1622 never called -> no precedence on PP is a person -> by R101, assuming a priori and without adjudication that an entity is not a person would abridge that entity's rights -> PP must be assumed to be a person. Which is why appealing 1623 works (after a fashion): PP is a not a person -> CFJ 1623 "reversed" on appeal -> CFJ 1623 was called, but never assigned -> CFJ 1623 "re" assigned -> New judge, or appeal of new judgment, finds PP not a person-> PP is not a person. On this latter route, R101 doesn't apply, for the right of an entity to a priori be a judge is not in R101, while the right to a priori be assumed a person (arguably) is. -Goethe
