On Dec 29, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Any organism that is generally capable of freely origininating and
Should be "originating". > Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied > using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that > can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule- > defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is > true. Soapbox: I like the intent behind this clause, but I don't like the way it's currently worded. If you can conclude an absurdity given the assumption that a statement is false, this *does* prove that the statement is true. Classical logic is the way truth-bearing statements behave; you can't legislate it away. The problem isn't interpreting the rules as axioms in the wrong logical system; the problem is interpreting the rules as logical axioms at all. They're regulations, which aren't truth-bearing, and aren't closed under logical entailment. I might say something like this: "The behavior of the game is specified by the rules themselves, not by the logical consequences of the rules. In particular, if the rules logically entail that an event does or does not take place, this does not necessarily cause the event to take place or to fail to take place." —Arufonsu Soopubokkusu
