==============================  CFJ 2290  ==============================

    The Ambassador CAN flip Wooble's Recognition to Friendly without


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Wooble

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              UNDETERMINED



Called by ais523:                       25 Nov 2008 16:52:57 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     25 Nov 2008 20:25:04 GMT
Wooble recused:                         25 Nov 2008 21:07:51 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     25 Nov 2008 21:22:10 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by BobTHJ:          27 Nov 2008 04:58:38 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

This is really about whether Wooble is a nomic or not,
phrased such that I have a miniscule chance of a random Win by Paradox.

A nomic ruleset is defined as follows:
      A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means
      for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those
      rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be
      possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of
      actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be
      required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable
      in finite time.
and nomics are defined by nomic rulesets.

(By the way, I assume that Wooble is human, as it seems likely and I am
aware of no evidence to the contrary.)

It is a philosophical question whether or not humans are defined in some
sense by a set of explicit rules; neuroscientists and philosophers have
puzzled over this for decades, and are unlikely to come to a conclusion
any time soon. However, if they are, it seems likely that these rules
can change over time; for instance, humans are known to be capable of
learning, and the neural connections in their brains change over time to
react to stimuli. It is quite possible, indeed plausible, that these
rules (although maybe not their encoding, which is not part of the nomic
ruleset) can change arbitrarily given enough time, and sufficient
advances in medical science, if they exist. So the question of whether
Wooble is a nomic basically comes down to if e is defined by a nomic
ruleset as a whole, i.e. by a set of explicit rules.

I seriously don't expect an Agoran CFJ to be able to solve this issue;
in fact, logic alone is insufficient to determine matters of logic and
philosophy. Therefore, the statement of this CFJ is "not capable of
being accurately described as either false or true", at least by logic
(the referent of "logically" in the relevant part of R591 is ambiguous
and probably refers only to "logically undecidable", but "FALSE" and
"TRUE" require the statement to be "factually and logically" true/false,
and interpreting "false or true" as "FALSE or TRUE" seems to be a
sensible interpretation, especially as if this interpretation were not
used it would be possible to have an inquiry CFJ with no appropriate

(As for the other possible judgements: FALSE and TRUE are both
inappropriate unless the judge can somehow solve a years-old philosophy
problem, it isn't MALFORMED, it isn't IRRELEVANT because it affects the
legality of a game action, and arguably it isn't UNDETERMINED because
"uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute
insufficiency of information for this purpose", and the question is
about how the rules define a nomic; however, I think if UNDETERMINED and
UNDECIDABLE are the only two judgements which have a chance of being
appropriate, or possibly FALSE if there's a flaw in my reasoning


Gratuitous Arguments by woggle:

CFJ 1860 is the pre-that-defintion precedent on this matter and may be

Uncertainty concerning scientific matters related to this question
makes UNDETERMINED an appropriate judgment.


Gratuitous Arguments by Billy Pilgrim:

Keyword = explicit (fully revealed or expressed without vagueness,
implication, or ambiguity)

As argued by ais523, we do not (perhaps cannot) know whether Wooble is
governed by a set of rules. Ergo, I would argue, IF e is governed by a set of
rules, they are clearly not -explicitly- defined anywhere. Unless you're into
the existence of platonic concepts. And I think those are a bit of a silly



Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:

In consensus with the arguments that have been presented I rule
UNDETERMINED. I thought I had judged a case similar to this in the
past but I can't seem to find it in the archive.