On 24 Sep 2008, at 17:37, Ian Kelly wrote:
Which of these was the claim of identity:
Phill
Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in
English
and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150)
Phill, a biological organism capable of communicating by email in
English
and therefore a first-class person (rule 2150) who has never been
a player
before
All three.
I thought that, but nobody else did, apparently.
Anyway: if the first ratified, then Phill isn't a person or
whatever, e (if
"e" even applies) just sent message #1 (and message #2 was
probably sent by
me since it hasn't ratified yet).
Phill is a person, no ratification necessary, unless you're claiming
that either you're not Phill or you're not a person.
I am arguing that I am not Phill, yes, that it ratified as Phill, who
didn't
previously exist. I'm not convinced that IS what happened, but that's
kind of
what I'm _hoping_, so to speak.
If the second ratified, then Phill is a first-class player. Eep. I
just
created a first-class player out of _nothingness_.
If the third ratified, same.
Whether an entity is a first-class person is not ratifiable. There is
no gamestate that could be changed (apart, I suppose, from the text of
R2150) that would effect such a ratification.
Well, yes, I'm treating the biologicalness ratifying as triggering
first-classness due to meeting the criteria.
1. my name changed to Phill
2. my name... also changed to Phill
I'm not sure what you mean the difference between these to be. In any
case, yes, I believe Phill is now an alias for you, just as Annabel
was once an alias for Maud.
I was implying no difference. Also, yes, I think it might be likely that
that is true, although I hope it is not.
3. my name changed to Phill *and it ratifies that I was
never a player*
Possible.
ais523 just calculated the gamestate without me. Ratification makes
it very
similar, apparently.
-root
