Isn't Murphy Arbitor? On Tue, Feb 6, 2018, 04:36 Cuddle Beam, <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Arbitor is currently vacant.) > I deputize as Arbitor to perform the following: > > ------*------- > > The CFJ summoned below by Nichdel is CFJ 3620 and the one summoned by > Cuddlebeam is CFJ 3621. > > I assign these both to Alexis. > > (They're both nearly identical and they mentioned favoring the case) > > ------*------- > > I then resign Arbitor. > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I should put one myself up too actually lol: > > > > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text: > > ------- > > "This sentence is false." > > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its > false, > > I owe no shinies to Agora. > > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to Nichdel but I do > > not owe any shinies to any person. > > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora > > and Nichdel what I owe them within a week of owing. > > ------- > > > > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to pay > > Nichdel at least one shiny. > > > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 6:21 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >> I T B E G I N S. > >> I'm excited to see the outcome! > >> > >> On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 4:54 AM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> TTttPF > >>> > >>> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Nicholas Evans <nich...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > > >>> >> Well it seems viable to me sooooo I'll give it a shot I guess lol. > >>> >> (Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). > >>> Here are > >>> >> the proto-actions: > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following > >>> text: > >>> >> ------- > >>> >> "This sentence is false." > >>> >> If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its > >>> >> false, > >>> >> I owe no shinies to Agora. > >>> >> If I owe a positive amount of shinies, I cannot make any transfer of > >>> >> shinies until I fulfill paying the amount owed. // <--- Mainly so > >>> that it > >>> >> can't be shot down as "irrelevant", because shinies are a game > >>> mechanic. > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > I'm not caught up on recent discussions but my reading of 2520 makes > >>> me > >>> > wonder if a contract can prohibit action. That said, I think this > >>> works: > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following > >>> text: > >>> > ------- > >>> > "This sentence is false." > >>> > If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its > >>> > false, I owe no shinies to Agora. > >>> > While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam > but > >>> I > >>> > do not owe any shinies to any person. > >>> > I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay > Agora > >>> > and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing. > >>> > ------- > >>> > > >>> > I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to > pay > >>> > CuddleBeam at least one shiny. > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >> ------- > >>> >> > >>> >> I raise a CFJ on the following: I owe Agora an amount of shinies due > >>> to > >>> >> the > >>> >> contract above. > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> >> > >>> >> > Maybe this is a dumb question but, wouldn't it be possible to just > >>> >> > "program" yourself some kind of paradox into a contract, for > >>> example, > >>> >> some > >>> >> > variant of the Paradox of the Court > >>> >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court where I have > to > >>> pay > >>> >> > someone or not, then request in a CFJ to know if I have to pay > them > >>> or > >>> >> not? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Then, have that CFJ gain a verdict of "Paradox" (and not because > of > >>> the > >>> >> > case itself, but because of the contract you've engineered to make > >>> the > >>> >> CFJ > >>> >> > read from it that value of "Paradox", to avoid "PARADOXICAL is not > >>> >> > appropriate if (...) the undecidability arises from the case > itself > >>> or > >>> >> in > >>> >> > reference to it.") > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Then claim a win via the Paradox rule. > >>> >> > > >>> >> > Sounds viable? > >>> >> > > >>> >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > > >
