On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:20 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Again, there's a difference between being being unable to do something >> for reasons unrelated to the law (cannot find keys; no access to email >> so can't mail agora-business) and because of it (it's a super-duper >> remote-controlled car which has been shut down; CANNOT). > > Well, this gets into the question of whether a CANNOT in the Agoran > ruleset is analogous to a law with some sort of physical enforcement > power or a law of physics. I'd argue that a CANNOT implies Platonic > gamestate that's impossible to change, and that a privilege to change > it anyway without providing a mechanism with a greater precedence than > the CANNOT is completely ineffective. > > I see the case of something that you CANNOT do but are privileged to > do as something like if the government granted you a license to > operate a faster-than-light vehicle powered by a perpetual motion > machine on public roads.
I thought the whole *purpose* of MMI was to set up this conceit, that CAN and CANNOT sets the game "physics". This is supported by every precedent I am aware of as well as words like IMPOSSIBLE. Of course I am aware of the self-referential issue of using law to set physics so that it is "not law but physics." -Goethe
