On 05/27/2017 04:10 AM, Martin Rönsch wrote:
I don't think the rules specify what kind of logic the game uses, so
in order to get to Explosion you'd have to argue that Agora's logic is
first order predicate logic by default.
If that's not valid (which I don't think it is, but I'm new, so I know
nothing) then you'd have to somehow reconstruct Agora's logical
calculus from all the rules, CFJs etc. in order to see whether
Explosion is necessary to make it work.
This seems like an almost impossible task to me. Has anyone ever tried
to something like this in a thesis?
Veggiekeks
There was a short-lived nomic that was loosely based of Agora's rules,
including the power system, called nommit. In that one we considered the
nomic to be based in a fuzzy logic. I don't think it came up at the
time, but I also think that you'd have to include modals.
In such a scheme, you could assign each statement the power of the
document that makes or secures it, modifying it (perhaps with > or < or
other symbols) to signify a statement that explicitly mentions an
exception or priority.
The findings of CFJs and the statements made in them don't have any
power over rules, so they'd all have a power between 0 and 0.1.
Additionally, the statements in the reasoning of a CFJ should probably
be considered Possiblies. If we found two Possiblies that seemed
entirely contradictory, we'd just do a CFJ to determine which is
correct. Formally that'd look something like:
From CFJ X, 0.01◇(A)
From CFJ Y, 0.01◇(-A)
CFJ Z:
Given CFJ X and Y, and [other reasoning employed by judge], I find that
>0.01◇(A).
Even this is over-simplified because, as veggiekeks alluded to, Agora
isn't really based on a logic. We'd have to build a logical notation out
of Agora, and such a thing would change frequently with the rules.
