On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Elliott Hird wrote:
> I intend, with two support, to appeal CFJ 2292 as it seems to imply that what
> is "actually" true is irrelevant.
Oh ehird, ehird, ehird. You've fallen victim to one of the classic
Agoran blunders (the most well-known is ISIDTID, but only *slightly*
less well-known...).
The only thing that is "actually" true around here as that (to the
best of our knowledge) we are independent entities with free will
who send each other email messages. Almost all else is legal and
not actual truth. You don't "actually" have any points, votes, power,
credits, marks, vouchers. You don't "actually" grow crops of the
number 3 (unless you're on Sesame Street). When you "do" something
by announcement, you don't "actually" do anything other than sending
a message.
A quite trivial example is that it would be possible to make a
rule "Opposite Day: Anyone who claims they are not a baboon is a
baboon." The only question when reality departs from legal
realit" is whether a court, resolving the question "I am a baboon"
would judge on the legal or actual reality if they are at odds.
Now, a judge would decide that you did under certain circumstances
harvest a '3' crop, not that "3 crops don't exist." I believe
the custom is strongly in favor of legal reality, at least since
the Pineapple discussions (ca Jan 2007) and Zefram's resulting Rule
2141 ("Role and Attributes of Rules").
-Goethe
