On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the > case create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is > prohibited, but it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it > says. That is a paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same > formal structure. The undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the > formal structure of the rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is > properly considered a logical undecidability.
FWIW, I don't agree that this state of affairs is logically undecidable or paradoxical. It's merely inconvenient. Also, I believe that submitting a judgement similar to your draft would be ILLEGAL, because your reasoning justifying PARADOXICAL is still based on the forbidden interpretation.
