On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote: > Kerim Aydin wrote: >> But this is all beside the point. The question on paradox is: does the >> *formal system* contain a paradox by its own internal logic? > > The formal system does not claim that judgements are necessarily correct, > so no.
We've lost the thread here. I was originally talking about preventing cases where the "A is false" *has* a reasonable argument, so it is "correct", but just happens to disqualify the messenger thus lead to the fact that it was never delivered, so that the messenger (a priori) *isn't* disqualified, so delivers the message, etc. So to return to the point, I'm saying that IF a "correct and reasonable" argument is given that disqualifies the judge giving it, THEN we have paradox in game terms, such that "Did person A deliver legal judgement B?" is UNDECIDABLE, and thus a winning play. I'm trying to disallow such things (as well as trivially self-referential CFJs, that we've had a couple of) from being a win, that was the point of my proto---I accept that maybe ratification isn't the best mechanism, for reasons you already pointed out. Complicating this by disagreeing as to what we would do if an "patently incorrect" 'A is false' like BobTHJ's were upheld in appeals isn't quite relevant until it happens. Hopefully it will be simply (and without paradox) overturned. :) -Goethe
