On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 17:18, John Smith <spamba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I cause BuckyBot to create a Slave Golem named "Ghost" in eir posession.
> I cause BuckyBot to transfer Ghost to me.
> I cause Ghost to create a Promise with the text "I register.". I cause Ghost
> to transfer that promise to me.
> I cause Ghost to create a Promise with the text "I CfJ on the statement 'I
> exist', barring BuckyBot. Evidence: This message. Arguments: Cogito Ergo
> Sum". I cause Ghost to transfer that promise to me.
> I cause Ghost to deregister.
> I Cash my Promise with the text "I CfJ on the statement 'I exist', barring
> BuckyBot. Evidence: This statement. Arguments: Cogito Ergo Sum".
Arguments:
First, I argue that Ghost ceased to exist when e deregistered.
In particular, R1586 says
If the rules are amended such that they define an entity both
before and after the amendment, but with different attributes,
then that entity and its attributes continue to exist to
whatever extent is possible under the new definitions.
While this does not strictly apply here, it should persuasive in
interpreting R2360's "When a Golem ceases to be a person, it is
destroyed." as indicating that its entities and properties cease to
exist.
Now, this creates an interesting scenario. A promise's author is
defined implicitly as the entity who created it. There is, however, no
entity which created it. It is not correct to attempt to interpret the
existence of a "shadow" of an entity; the destruction completely
obliterated Ghost. The promise Bucky purported to cash was, quite
simply, left authorless.
As a result, the promise should be interpreted as would be any other
promise with no author (such as one created by proposal) would be. In
particular, attempting to have the author publish a statement is
entirely meaningless. Thus that portion of the cashing fails.
Thus I argue that the CFJ purported to have been called in the above
text was not, in fact, called.
-scshunt
