Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion [2022-08-18 09:23]: > > On 8/18/2022 9:07 AM, juan via agora-discussion wrote: > > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2022-08-18 07:51]: > >> I submit the following Proposal: > >> Title: "Time B Safe" > >> AI: 4 > >> co-authors: Jason, Murphy. > >> --------------------------------- > >> > >> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing: > >> adopted within a four-week period. > >> with: > >> adopted within a real-world (UTC) four-week period. > >> > >> [ > >> In discord, a Power-5 Rule was suggested: "Rules to the contrary > >> notwithstanding, this rule CANNOT be changed in January or February of > >> 2023". > >> > >> Up until the time a proposal to change this rule could take effect before > >> January 2023, Agora would not be ossified. But then you cross a time > >> boundary and Agora would become ossified. One *possible* interpretation of > >> > >>> If any other single change or inseparable group of changes to the > >>> gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause > >>> Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules > >>> to the contrary notwithstanding. > >> > >> is that the "cancelled change" would be time passing! With the conclusion > >> that time had (as a legal fiction) stopped, with no way of getting it > >> started again. So this proposal puts an extra protection on time by making > >> it clear that only "real world" time is relevant. The title a reference B > >> nomic, an established nomic some years back that was killed when they > >> accidentally stopped time or at least couldn't get it started again. > >> ] > > > > I'm not sure this couldn't be circumvented. First of all, because the > > rules don't define the notion of time in any way. The only reasonable > > interpretation is that it refers to time-the-physical-concept, whatever > > that is. So several issues come about. > > So just to be clear, this isn't intended to be a block against a malicious > attack. If someone got the ability to pass an AI=3 rule change they could > always purposefully get around this. The purpose here to make it > painfully clear in the definition that "for these purposes, we're defining > real-world time, we can't use R1698 to accidentally infer a kind of "game > time" that stops. > > The *possibility* of accidentally stopping time (that is, for "real time" > deviating from "game time" due to a logical argument and rules text) was > suggested as a potential unexpected outcome in CFJ 3580, although it was > all very hypothetical: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3580 > > Overall, there may be other interpretations of an ossification situation > that get us out of any such mess; this proposal is meant to make it just a > wee bit harder/less plausible for a judge to make a convincing "time has > stopped" argument. > > > * I can't think of something that could be reasonably called an *action* > > that causes the event of “being in january”. In any case, that > > transition only happens at a single point in time. > > It's not "actions" that are blocked by R1698 but "changes": > > If any other single change [would ossify the game] > > it is cancelled and does not occur > > And "time changing" is arguably a change. However, it's quite possible > that "time ticking forward" is not a change per se but what happens in the > absence of change (i.e. in common language we speak of "changing clocks" > when we make them deviate from ticking forward, not when they tick forward > normally). So maybe I'm worrying about nothing here. > > > * Time keeps ticking forward. When March would come, all would be > > resolved anyway. > > I don't think that matters for R1698 on January 1 when you're entering the > ossification state. If we create the legal fiction that time can't > progress into Jan 1 without temporary ossification, we'd never get to March. > > > * Can one perform actions without time? We don't know, because the rules > > don't define it. So we should use our common-sense, which says that > > no, you can't. So *that* would ossify Agora and thus not be allowed. > > The minimal set of changes would have to be that the rule was never > > created in the first place. > > > > * It is in the best interest of the game to interpret all of this in a > > way that makes gameplay still possible. > > Yes it's quite likely that this is protecting against something that's > common sense anyway - but again we've got enough history of legal fictions > (like the abovementioned CFJ) that it might be a good precaution anyway? > > > In the end, my particular arguments don't matter too much. I'm just > > saying I think there are enough of them for us to deal with such a rule.
This is interesting. Its a nuanced discussion. But I do have a beef with the CFJ you mention. I am by no means a platonist, nor act as one. There are other philosphical standings compatible with Agorans' actions, so the following part of the argument (in the CFJ) is moot. Just as an example, take Mario Bunge's approach for philosophical semantics: > If we abstract from ideation, which is a concrete brain process, as > well as from communication, which is a concrete physical process, we > get constructs: concepts (in particular predicates), propositions, and > bodies of such - for example, theories. […] Philosophical semantics > handles constructs as if they were autonomous - ie., Platonic Ideas - > without however assuming that there are such. > > The existence of constructs may be regarded as a pretense on a par > with the infinite plane wave and the self sufficient steppenwolf: all > three are fictions. (See Vaihinger, 1920; Henkin, 1953.) In each case· > the real thing is far more complex but, if we want to theorize, we > must start by building more or less sketchy models: once the modeling > is under way we may contemplate complication and articulation. -- juan
