Subject: Re: Simplex: Contradiction
From: Jeffrey Reinecke <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 20:47:38
>>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.
>This would be the case if there was nothing but Law 115. Also in existance
>are actions (such as this decree) made under its authority.
However, those actions aren't law. Besides, it upholds under the ENITRE
Constitution, as well as ALL laws. There is a vital flaw there in your
logic. There is NO law which says that I must follow your actions, other
than 115. However, equally true by 115, and the entire rule set, I can
declare that I don't have to follow your actions. Isn't this a
contradicion? Your still not breaking my logic.
>Your action falls under what a previous action (which created the
>Difinosaur) indicates is an effect on the citizen and thingie known as
>Jeff. This action is hereby vetoed by the thingie Muscle Man Murphy.
Yes, but I argued that time takes no precedence. I declare that there is
no precedence for actions. This can't be overruled in any way, otehr than
by Judge's or law. Two can play at this game. :)
>>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.
>Only if you consider Law 115 as it stood before the game began. It has
>since permitted many things to occur among them a process for one
>phenomenon scheme to define and cancel another.
115 hasn't changed since hte beginning of the game, however, we are still
both acting legal as far as the laws say. It created processes for both
of us to permit many htings to occur.
>>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
>>that I may vote of my own free will.
>Except Law 115 itself. For your interpretation to be valid, 115 would have
>to read: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a law is permitted and
>unregulated, EXCEPT DOING ANYTHING WHICH LIMITS THE ACTION OF ANOTHER
>CITIZEN, OR changing the laws which is permitted only when a law or set of
>laws explicitly or implicitly permits it" as I noted in the message with
>the subject "Simplex: Kicking off debate" which has not yet been repsonded to.
I don't see how that matter. If it were there, neither of us made a legal
move, but since it isn't there, we both acted legally. 115 doesn't stop
me, in anyway from declaring that I can vote on my own free will. Your
action did, but 115 doesn't. That is a very important distinction.
Furthermore, 101 only binds me to follow the laws, not actions. Although
115 makes me follow actions. It doesn't say that your actions are above
mine because they were first. I'm sorry.
>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".
>Incorrect as I noted above.
I beg to differ, you are the incorrect one. You seem to fail to see my
logic, and have done nothing to break it, only try to side step it.
>>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.
>All attempts to carry out laws require intuition and the ability to draw
>logical connections between what the text says and what it doesn't say and
>what meaning all of this has. My interpretation and you interp both
>involove this intuition, I am claiming that mine is more textually and
Mine is just as logically and textually correct. I see no reason that
yours is better. You jsut merely stating that you claim this has no
relevence. I state that they have the same relevance. Part I, which is
my decree, is completely legal and binding. There is no reason why yours
is and mine isn't. Besides, since it isn't explicitly stated in Simplex'x
laws, nor implied in Simplex's laws, we do not have ANYTHING FORCING
ANYONE to use the laws of physics as presented by the rest of the
universe. You can if you want, but I can just as legally not!
>>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.
>If a thingie was created named "a law" that described itself as "immutable
>and numbered 1" would you accept it as having clear precedence? The laws
>as they currently stand permit this but we know with intuition and logic
>that this is not what is meant.
It isn't just that things are labled a certain way. I can label a
watermelon a chicken, and it definately isn't a chicken. But I diverge.
If the law were legally put there as a law, by the laws presented in
Simplex, then I would say it has precedence. If we, through legal methods
created an immutable law, and went through everything necessary to make it
numbered 1, then it legally binds me in that state. But actions aren't
laws, just actions. You still havn't proved that your actions are in any
way more valid.
>(As a saftey valve, If such an interpretation is in fact valid, I create
>the above mentioned thingie with the description that "THingies may have
>more than one name. This thingie is named with all the names of
>non-citizen thingies created since Simplex began and containing all of
>there text. If any provisions of these thingies are ruled to be not in
>accordance with the Laws, all other provions remane in effect.")
It doesn't matter what you do, it won't kill my argument. I can call my
decree an action. 115 still doesn't stop it, only helps it. There is NO
LEGAL reason why your actions are above mine. Only changing the laws
themselves will do this.
>Even direct X is X therefore it acts like X requires interpretation. This
>does not mean Simplex is unplayable, just that intuition and logical
>thought is obviously called for.
What the hell?
Logical thought, not intution, is what I used. There is a difference.
Besides, since intutition isn't governed by law, you can use it all you
want, and indeed, we seem to do so a lot, conciously, and unconciously,
however, I decided, just as legally, not to use the laws of the universe
here, and just the laws of Simplex. If you can point me to something, in
the laws of Simplex, which challenge that, then do so. Otherwise, you
don't have any more precedence over me, than I to you.
>>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
>This is untrue based on my above statements.
It is ture base on mine! I think you are wrong, and you think I am. I
uphold that you have the faulty logic. You still have not pointed to me
anything wrong with my logic, just ways of sidestepping it in a tricky,
underhanded method. You really need to do better.
>>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.
>First, I believe I've demonstrated that logic and intuition (which are
>necessary to play a Nomic game or think) coupled with a careful examination
>of what the Law says and does not say, indicate the results are not
>contradictory, mine wins.
I disagree, I think you are sneakaly trying to preserve your reign, when
in fact, it is obvious that you must grab from thin threads of facts that
you are imposing and not proving. You just use a twisted logic to suggest
that they are true. I still have an unbroken logic, that is simple and
elegant. You seem to have created a tricky convolution of ideas that
trick one into thinking that there is validity to them. They still fail
to convince me, and I am really genuinely trying. I want to be wrong so
that the game doesn't end so quickly, but you fail to be convincing.
>Second, even assuming all of this, an RFJ would settle which is legal
>according to the Law or failing this, (from Law 211) "If the laws are
>silent, inconsistent, or unclear on a point at issue, the Judge shall
>consider game custom and the spirit of the game before applying other
>standards." So even if we're both wrong, simply submit an RFJ on your
>paradox and find out if it exists for real.
Actually, by 212, I win unless someone RFJs me. :) Besides, a Judge
can't hold it in thier good concious to make a ruling on who has
precedence, when there obviouslt isn't any. You keep trying to impose
something that is implied to you, but not to me, in order to make your
actions more valid. I have a nice clean, explicit logic behind mine.
Since when did implicit interpretations work better than explicit logical
>If this is final situation is the case, I'd like to point out that my
>actions occured earlier than others, are substantively similar to other
>nomic schemes, and are directly supported by at least some of participants.
> I think it that considering this, my actions would be a better choice for
>what game custum actually was.
However, my actions are too, substantiated by some of the participants in
Simplex. Also, it is unfair to use other nomics as examples, because we
are governed by a different, and unique set of rules. There is no reason
to use them as a precedence. Does the US Supreme Court use Iraq's law
interpretations as a guide? How about France? Or even Britin, from whom
the US derived many of it's law ideals? I think not home skillet!
Furthermore, although your actions occured earlier, I rigourously, and
explicitly proved that that is meaningless. We are both just as legal.
>To that end, only Law 211 mentions game custom, so I will take this
>opportunity to regulate this unregulated area by creating a thingie named
>"game custom and the spirit of the game" with the description "This thingie
>includes all public actions taken by the citizen known as Tom Mueller when
>Simplex started. It also includes anything the above mentioned player says
>it is later on."
However, if I am right, the Judge doesn't even have to follow this. For I
am declaring that the above statement is void, and that anything Tom does
is void. I am just as legal. My explicit logic shows this. Your
implicit logic didn't prove antything but one interpretation. So it would
seem that you have inadvertantly (if I haven't jumped th gun) implied that
I am right, by showing an alternative logic scheme which contradicts mine.
:) Besides, we want an objective Judgment, not some half-assed attempt to
P.S.- Although it is not in the rules, If an RFJ doesn't happen on me by
Monday night, I'm declaring this game ended. I am not doing this so that
I may win, but merely because if I don't put a deadline, we'll never get
anywhere. We will then have a very badly needed Consitutional Convention
(and we better hurry, for I am leaving and won't have time to work on a
Consitution for awhile after next Thursday night. I need to get settled
in in my new home, and get the modem hooked up, etc...) Then we can start
a new cycle, and play on. Of course, if an RFJ does happen, then I won't
end it unless the Judge rules me correct.
Come to think of it, irregardless, I think that we better start working on
an alternate Constitution, because either way, this game is ending real
quick. I'd rather we were all equally involved in the new Constitution
than let one person declare what the new Consitution is. I have plenty of
time this week to work on one, but won't for a couple days in a row.
Minister of Records