On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't believe that follows. The fact that publishing of a message > *is* a game-relevant action does not imply that the message *contains* > a game-relevant action (a message does not contain its own > publication, which is an action of a physical nature).
Actually, I think this could be interpreted either way without yielding an UNDECIDABLE result. The reason your argument ends up there is because it's self-contradictory in this respect. Take a look at these two statements: > this means that the publishing of the message itself was a > game-relevant action, because it affected the outcome of the CFJ; > therefore, whatever the contents of the message, the CFJ is going to be > ruled FALSE (i.e. TRUE that there is a game-relevant action) For this implication to be true, it is implicitly assumed that the publication of the message is part of the message's contents. > therefore the contents of the message do not affect the outcome of the > CFJ But this implicitly assumes that the publication of the message is not part of the message's contents. That is, the outcome of the CFJ is determined by the fact that the message was published, and if the previous assumption that the message's contents include the action of its publication is sustained, then the contents did in fact affect the outcome of the CFJ, and there is no contradiction. -root
