==============================  CFJ 3249  ==============================

    I CAN destroy a promise with the text "CREAMPUFF!".

========================================================================

Caller:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              UNDECIDABLE

========================================================================

History:

Called by omd:                          07 Jul 2012 07:23:37 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     25 Jul 2012 16:57:45 GMT
Judged UNDECIDABLE by Murphy:           25 Jul 2012 17:24:09 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Evidence:

I create a promise:
Text: { CREAMPUFF! }
Condition for the promise not to be destroyed when cashed: This
promise is destroyed when cashed.

I cash the above promise.

========================================================================

Judge Murphy's Arguments:

Interpreting the promise's condition literally, the relevant clause in
Rule 2338 parses as:

      Cashing this promise destroys it, unless the condition "This
      promise is destroyed when cashed." is true.

If the condition is true, then the promise isn't destroyed, so the
condition is false (contradiction).

If the condition is false, then the promise is destroyed, so the
condition is true (contradiction).

If the condition is neither true nor false, then the promise is
destroyed, so the condition is true (contradiction).

In previous instances of "Condition for this promise not to be destroyed
when cashed: This promise is not destroyed when cashed.", it was
tempting to interpret the promise's condition figuratively, as a direct
statement of overall outcome:  "hey, never mind exact wording; this
describes something that can be accomplished in an obvious fashion,
therefore it accomplishes that thing".  But this can no more bootstrap
its own authority than "I say I do, therefore I do"; it only counts as
obvious intent when resolving the literal interpretation (which is also
circular but not self-contradictory):

  If the condition is true, then the promise isn't destroyed, so the
  condition is true (consistent and matching obvious intent).

  If the condition is false, then the promise is destroyed, so the
  condition is false (consistent but not matching obvious intent).

  If the condition is neither true nor false, then the promise is
  destroyed, so the condition is true (contradiction).

In this instance, a similar figurative interpretation would be an even
worse abuse of language.  The literal interpretation stands, and so the
promise cannot be consistently interpreted as either destroyed or not
destroyed.

========================================================================