On Feb 19, 2008 2:36 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's a lot of semantic theory about interpreting counterfactuals. It's > certainly not dangerous for situations that are reasonably conceivable. > The problem that you refer to only really arises with counterfactuals that > undermine fundamental modes of thought. "Would I be able to deregister > BobTHJ if 1 + 1 were equal to 3?" would be thus problematic.
My point is that I'm not convinced the situation at hand *is* reasonably conceivable. What would it mean for you to hold the position of BobTHJ? Where would that put BobTHJ emself? I would not be surprised if certain interpretations of that premise did indeed entail 1 + 1 = 3. > It's a more immediate problem if you *don't* read R2160(d) that way. > Suppose that I want to deputise for the assessor. You'd read the rule > as asking "Can I hold the position of assessor?", to which the answer > is clearly no: I haven't been installed into that office, so under the > rules of Agora it's impossible for me to currently be assessor. At least in that case it would be reasonably conceivable that you had been installed as Assessor. I suppose what I'm arguing is that the clause is written, as you note, as a counterfactual conditional, and it should be interpreted in that way -- except when that interpretation makes no sense. -root
