Subject: Simplex: Contradiction
From: Jeffrey Reinecke <email@example.com>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 17:38:39
115 states: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is
permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the laws,
which is permitted only when a law or set of laws explicitly or implicitly
Since the following is not prohibited or regualted by any law, and thus is
binding and legal under 115, I shall make the following decree:
Jeff Reinecke may vote "yes" or "no, on any proposition of his own free
will. He may not be forced to vote in any manner by anything and
everything. This decree takes precedence over anything that is not law.
Now here is the interesting thing. By law 115, Everything Tom has created
is legal and valid. Muscle Man Murphy may make us vote how he pleases,
and everything he said is legally binding. However, equally under 115, I
can make my decree, which says that I can vote of my own free will. This
is because, there is nothing in the laws which regulates how I must choose
to vote, and can therefore, by 115, not contradict ANY laws by declaring
that I may vote of my own free will. Hence, our statements, both equally
valid and legal, completely contradict. One forces me to vote "yes",
while the other one allows me to vote "no".
I have discussed this with multiple people, and no one has been able to
point out ANY flaws in my own logic. The only argument that I get is
based on a forcing of intuitive notions and laws of the made my decree.
However, this cause and effect justification, although valid in the real
world, is not valid in Simplex. Within the laws of Simplex, there is
nothing governing the order of precedence of anything that is not a law.
Therefore, since nothing we have declared is law, there is nothing
governing that cause and effect, or time, have any validity in determening
who has authority. Indeed, there is no possible guage for precedence that
may be used in Simplex without imposing an extra-game standard onto the
game of Simplex. There is NOTHING WITHIN the laws of SImplex that doesn't
make my decree as legal and binding as Tom's actions and decrees (of any
Therefore, I, Jeff Reinecke, submit that by law 212:
("If the laws are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the
legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, so that a move
appears equally legal and illegal, then the citizen who first submits an
observance of the contradiction to the Minister of Records is the winner.
If disagreement arises over the way in which the citizen won, then
judgment is invoked to decide the issue.")
I am the winner of Simplex. For both Tom and myself are equally legal and
illegal in our actions (and decrees, or whatever you want tocall them),
and they lead to a contradictory result.