Goethe wrote: > On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: >> That doesn't sound like a paradox at all. Judgements do not change >> gamestate; they only narrow down the axioms we employ in determining >> gamestate. So there was no causal loop of the judgements invalidating >> themselves; there was just uncertainty as to which one had actually >> happened, dependent wholly upon legal interpretation. The appropriate >> thing to do would have been to solicit a new, unambiguous judgement to >> resolve the issue. > > The paradox was the question of "who judged CFJ 1594". This was before > judgement-questions were specifically excluded from paradox. -Goethe
Before what, now? Self-referential questions (e.g. "This statement is false") are specifically excluded from win-by-paradox, yes.
