On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Logical: "This statement is true." On the basis of logic alone, >> either TRUE or FALSE is self-consistent. >> >> Legal: "Goethe was a player at <appropriate time c. December >> 2006>". According to one legal interpretation, TRUE is consistent >> and FALSE is not; according to another, FALSE is consistent and >> TRUE is not. > > I don't recall the details of Goethe's paradox; I think I was > deregistered at the time. But in general, if something is purely a > matter of legal interpretation, then neither UNDECIDABLE nor FLOYD > would be appropriate. It's the judge's job in such a case to pick a > legal interpretation and judge TRUE or FALSE based upon it. That's > the whole purpose of the judicial system to begin with.
It was geniunely one of those UNDECIDABLE ones. Murphy assigned a CFJ on whether or not I was a player to myself, then immediately afterwards to Sherlock (only valid if I wasn't a player). I judged I was not a player, therefore my judgement was invalid and Sherlock's assignment worked. Sherlock judged that I was a player therefore eir judgement was invalid and my assignment worked. The important thing was that objectively, there were quite reasonable arguments on both sides for whether I was a player or not (it was debated before the assignments). -Goethe
