Subject: Re: Simplex: Up for another iteration?
From: McAllister <email@example.com>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 01:25:15
I hesitate to interrupt this exciting exchange between Jeff and Tom, but I
never could resist throwing in my two sunadas in a logic argument.
I simply want to set forth for examination my understanding and
interpretation of the argument between Jeff and Tom as it now stands. I
stress that these interpretation have not been authorized by either Jeff or
Tom. They are only my effort at organizing for easy consumption the ideas
that have been flying back and forth. Text in the <> delimiters is my
opinion of the validity of a the preceeding section of the argument, as I
interpret it, or point I wish to make.
As I understand it, Tom's argument is this:
1) Law #115 allows Tom to commit the act of forcing another player (if
that player chooses to vote in the first place) to give a particular vote,
yes, no, or abstain, of Tom's choosing.
<There is no Law which prohibits or regulates this form of action. Tom is
therefore allowed to do this.>
2) Since Tom can commit this act of coersion, if he chooses to excerise
this right on another player, that player is in fact coersed to give the
vote Tom forces them to give.
<This also is true. It follows logically that if Tom coerses another
player, as I have conceeded he is allowed to do in step (1), then that
player has been coersed. Therefore, Tom's argument in its entirety is
flawless. His action are legal. Other players are legally compeled to
follow his dictates.>
As I understand it, Jeff's argument is this:
1) Tom's argument given above is flawless.
<As I have said, I agree. Tom has suggested that Jeff is inadvertantly
reading an additional clause into 115 which disallows actions which limit
other players. I believe that such an interpretation would be necessary
only if Jeff was argueing that Tom's actions are illegal (as they would be
if such a clause existed). I believe that Jeff agrees that Tom's actions
2) However, so is the following argument, which has a conclusion
contredictory to Tom's.
a) Law #115 allows Jeff to commit the act of making himself immune to
any form of coersion.
b) Since no law disallows this, and no action, which can be shown to
have precedence over Jeff's action by any law, disallows this, Jeff cannot
be prevented from making this act.
c) If Jeff commits the act of making himself immune to any form of
coersion, and since this is a legal move, he becomes in fact immune to any
form of coersion, including that of Tom's.
3) Since the above argument is valid (legal), and yet has a result which
contradicts Tom's valid (legal) argument, there is a paradox, and grounds
for a paradox win.
<Tom once said that actions made under 115 have the force of Law. I agree.
Such action also share this weekness with Law: There is a case when a law
is not followed; namely, when another law contradicts it and, by Law, takes
precedence over it, or when neither precedence nor subordination can be
legally shown for either law, in which case a paradox occurs. Since
precedence cannot be legally establish, a paradox has in fact occured.>
This where I stand on the issue at this time. I welcome comments (as
though I could stop them).