> The set {Cuddlebeam's Master Switch, Agora's Ruleset} fails to satisfy
> the second part.Jason argued the set is distinct from its elements. I don't think it would change the judgement, but it might change the arguments. Not sure if it's worth re-opening. (Jason argued that the contract could indeed destroy the set, but that wouldn't do anything because it's just the set that's destroyed. A possible counter to that could be that the set exists independent of whether anything happens to refer to it, since we seem to have a Platonic attitude here, which would mean Murphy's argument that it fails the second condition still works.) - Falsifian
