On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009, comex wrote: >>> comex CAN adopt a trumpet without 15 objections; its power is set to >>> one, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. >> >> Doesn't fix the problem that this text has to be taken to be a part of >> a hypothetical rule (with uncertain power) for this to work. I don't >> think any number of indirection or catalyst levels fix that. -G. > > In this case the enacting agent is the trumpet, whose power is one. > Are you seriously suggesting applying the requirement of ambiguity all > the way down the chain? In this case, would the action also fail > because it's not known whether I am wearing a hat?
Wearing a hat is not a substantial and necessary part of a rule. But actually, I do see how trumpets would be a step beyond my own arguments. I will try to summarize "best arguments" on this line, the hypothetical properties line, and Murphy's "existence" line. -G.
