On Tuesday 27 May 2008 8:29:03 comex wrote: > On 5/26/08, Ben Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because there is no time delay between gnarliness becoming a given > > value and it being automatically flipped to the next value, the waiting > > period for any non-slippy gnarliness to become mixy is zero. > > > > Thus, at any given moment, gnarliness is, if not slippy, effectively > > each of spiky, twisty, and mixy. It cycles through these in sequence, > > but that sequentiality passes perpendicularly to time rather than along > > it as a timed cycle would, so that although gnarliness passes through > > each value individually and distinctly, as if "one at a time", in > > practice all three values are "available" in any given chronological > > instant. > > > > Therefore, at the time the CFJ was called, ais523 was in fact mixy, as > > well as spiky and twisty, and thus could leave the Gnarly Contract by > > announcement. > I intend to appeal these judgements with 2 support. > > Arguments: > > So... observation of the switch having any one value would collapse > the wave function, and prevent any further attempt in that message > that would assume gnarliness to be any other value? > > Well, that makes sense, but then again, not really. Quantum mechanics > confuses me. And I'm not sure it's been established to exist in > Agora.
No, it's not a quantum wave function. Gnarliness really is observably 100% in each of its non-slippy values at each instant (assuming it isn't slippy). I don't think R2197's uncertainty clause applies either. I see the given action as straightforwardly possible. I guess what I'm saying is, don't REMAND. Pavitra
