Kerim Aydin wrote:
>In an extreme example of timeliness of truth values, the truth value
>of common public announcement with legal effects, "I Do", won't be
>known until years later, when we see if it really was "to death do
>us part".
No, the "I do" is "I do promise ...", which is something that
Zefram wrote:
> The time that you typed the characters is not an appropriate context
> in which to judge its truth value; it must be judged in the context
> of it being a public message.
Wooble wrote:
> "An interesting aspect of imperatives is that although they express
> the will of the speaker
On 8/30/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Can you point me to a reference in logical or grammatical literature
> > that assigns a truth value to any imperative statement ("Stand up",
> > "Go left", "Zefram, be quiet").
>
> Oh hey, I found a r
Michael Norrish wrote:
>It certainly doesn't smell like a falsehood to me. It's ill-formed
>perhaps, but ill-formed doesn't mean false.
The fault with it is exactly the same thing that is at fault with the
declarative statement "The red ball is in the box on the blue table.".
Supposing, again, t
Zefram wrote:
Kerim Aydin wrote:
Can you point me to a reference in logical or grammatical literature
that assigns a truth value to any imperative statement
Mm, that's philosophically a tricky issue. An imperative could contain
a counterfactual subordinate clause that make it reasonable to
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Can you point me to a reference in logical or grammatical literature
>that assigns a truth value to any imperative statement
Mm, that's philosophically a tricky issue. An imperative could contain
a counterfactual subordinate clause that make it reasonable to talk about
the wh
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Can you point me to a reference in logical or grammatical literature
> that assigns a truth value to any imperative statement ("Stand up",
> "Go left", "Zefram, be quiet").
Oh hey, I found a reference that agrees with you:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sic
Zefram wrote:
> It's still a statement with a truth value, though, however it's expressed.
Can you point me to a reference in logical or grammatical literature
that assigns a truth value to any imperative statement ("Stand up",
"Go left", "Zefram, be quiet"). Common sense tells me that impera
On 8/30/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and we do not get the effects of these announcements confused.
Except when people are registering :)
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>One might argue that this is shorthand for a sentence,
which I do. It is in much the same spirit that we accept repeat counts.
>the rules don't actually state anywhere that such actions have to be
>well formed sentences, just that they have to be clear.
The rules state that
Zefram wrote:
> Michael suggests that we could equally well take game actions by messages
> that do not take the form of statements. For example, the rules could
> state that a vote is submitted by sending a message containing the
> magic word "ABULAFIA" followed by a proposal number and a vote v
I've done some thinking about this, for CFJ 1730 and since then, and
it seems to me that action announcements clearly have a truth value in
the normal manner. They are grammatically ordinary statements, in the
indicative mood and the present tense. The only thing that distinguishes
them from othe
Peekee wrote:
> 1) It is true if it changed the Gamestate as intended.
> 2) The statement is really "I attempt to vote FOR" and is true regardless.
> 3) The statement can not be assigned a truth value. It is neither true =20
> nor false. It is simply a construct or depending on how you look at it
root wrote:
> As you note, it is the rules that give the announcement its legal
> status as a cast vote, so it sounds to me like what you're arguing is
> "ISIDTID as long as the action is recognized by the rules", which
> isn't really ISIDTID at all. But maybe I'm misunderstanding.
Oh, hrm, yes
On 8/29/07, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Similarly, announcing "I pick up a rock" is not an action that results
> > > in myself holding a rock.
> >
> > But in our case, it does. What results in a vote being cast?
> > The announceme
Here is another way of looking at things.
1) Players make statements.
2) Statements are interpreted by the Gamestate (Rules + Rules defined
stuff) and the human beings that play the game (~Players).
3) The statement in 1) may or may not change the game state depending
on the interpretation in
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Similarly, announcing "I pick up a rock" is not an action that results
> > in myself holding a rock.
>
> But in our case, it does. What results in a vote being cast?
> The announcement? The noting by Assessor? The Reporting of the vote?
> Ou
comex wrote:
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You confuse cause and effect. The game doesn't make the statement itself
"true", the statement makes the game condition true, if the game allows.
True. Right now,
I vote FOR
is a statement I believe is false. However, if this
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You confuse cause and effect. The game doesn't make the statement itself
> "true", the statement makes the game condition true, if the game allows.
True. Right now,
I vote FOR
is a statement I believe is false. However, if this is a message
comex wrote:
> I don't think the fallacy is legal or logical; I believe it's Goethe
> et al's grammatical fallacy that "I vote FOR" is not a statement.
There is no et al. It is all myself.
I may have mispoke, it is strictly speaking a "statement", but it is not
a statement that can be meaning
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is also why any attempt to define statements like "I vote
> 1000 times" as perjury are logically flawed, even if such
> attempted actions are made with reckless disregard for whether
> they are possible.
I disagree.
I vote FOR.
I am voting
root wrote:
> The rules seem quite
> clear to me that it is the act of announcing an action that makes it
> so, not performing it.
We are in agreement here, in practical terms. What I'm saying is that
an "action announcement" is neither true nor false. Take the following
post:
1. I am about t
On 8/29/07, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A certain logical fallacy that has plagued agora for a long time
> makes this impossible, as long as we accept it.
More of a metaphysical fallacy than a logical one, I think.
> If we accept "I say I do, therefore I do", then "game actions"
> ca
comex wrote:
> perform game actions anyway, or otherwise publish true statements.
A certain logical fallacy that has plagued agora for a long time
makes this impossible, as long as we accept it.
If we accept "I say I do, therefore I do", then "game actions"
cannot be true or false. The act of
24 matches
Mail list logo
