Subject: Re: Simplex: Contradiction
From: Mueller <mueller4@sonic.net>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 19:00:40

Jeff wrote:
>PART I
>
>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
>permits it."
>
>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.

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.

>PART II
>
>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.

>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.

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.

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 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
logically correct.

>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.

(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.")

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.

>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
>sort).

This is untrue based on my above statements.

>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.

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.

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.

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."