From owner-agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Mon Sep 29 06:17 EDT 1997
Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (majordom-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au [144.110.168.141]) by cs.brown.edu (8.8.5/8.7.1) with ESMTP id GAA04576 for dp-@cs.brown.edu; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 06:17:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom-@localhost)
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA13387
	for agora-official-list; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:12:07 +1000
Received: from wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (wsinfm15.win.tue.nl [131.155.69.168])
	by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA13381
	for agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 19:11:57 +1000
Received: by wsinfm15.win.tue.nl (8.7.1/1.45)
    id LAA07936; Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:16:58 +0200 (MET DST)
From: engel-@win.tue.nl (Andre Engels)
Message-Id: 199709290916.laa0793-@wsinfm15.win.tue.nl
Subject: OFF: CFJ 941 Final Judgement: FALSE
To: agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (nomic-official list)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 1997 11:16:57 +0200 (MET DST)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-agora-officia-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Length: 14505

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


CFJ 941 


All proposed Amendments to the Frankenstein Rule were made impossible by the
Frankenstein Generator when the change to the Frankenstein Monster assigned to
"Week 1", reported by the Mad Scientist on Mon, 11 August 1997, took effect.


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



Judge:       Vlad
Justices:    General Chaos (S), Andre (C), elJefe (J)


Judgement:   FALSE
Final Judgement:
	     FALSE


Eligible:    Andre, Blob, Calabresi, Chuck, Crito, Elde, elJefe, 
             General Chaos, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, Steve, Vir, 
             Vlad, Zefram

Not eligible: 
Caller:      Kolja A.
Barred:      Harlequin, Murphy
On request:  Vanyel
On hold:     Swann


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



History:
  Called by Kolja A., 10 Sep 1997, 21:49 +0200
  Assigned to Vlad, 11 Sep 1997 11:13:39 +0200 (MET DST)
  Judged FALSE by Vlad, 16 Sep 1997 00:16 -0500 (CDT)
  Appealed by Oerjan, 16 Sep 1997, 20:15 +0200 (MET DST)
  Appealed by Crito, 16 Sep 1997, 15:16 EDT
  Appealed by General Chaos, 16 Sep 1997, 16:00 -0500
  Assigned to General Chaos, 20 Sep 1997 14:05:46 +0200 (MET DST)
  elJefe SUSTAINs the Judgement of FALSE, 23 Sep 1997 08:35:16 +0000
  General Chaos OVERTURNs to DISMISSAL, 25 Sep 1997 17:09:40 -0500
  Andre SUSTAINs the Judgement, Fri, 26 Sep 1997 14:51:19 +0200 (MET DST) 

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


(Caller's) Arguments: 


The Frankenstein Generator, 1672, requires among other things that 



      vii) All proposed Amendments to the Frankenstein Rule must
           consist of a single sentence of additional text specifying
           the properties and effects of a Frankenstein Monster, to be
           inserted between the first and last paragraphs.

However, the Frankenstein Monster, at the time specified in the statement,
contained the sentence



      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Frankenstein Monster 
      is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing 
      the Frankenstein Monsters, which is permitted only when a 
      Frankenstein Monster or set of Frankenstein Monsters explicitly
      or implicitly permits it.

It did not, however, contain any explicit or implicit permissions permitting
such changes.


The introduction of additional text "specifying the properties and effects of a
Frankenstein Monster" is equivalent to "changing the Frankenstein Monsters". So
the FM prohibits the only proposed amendments to the FR allowed by the FG. (Note
that amendments that change nothing are excluded by point



       vi) No Amendment can be applied to the Frankenstein Rule that
           is substantially the same as any prior successfully applied
           Amendment to the Frankenstein Rule.

of 1672) 


Admittedly, this argument has two ossible weaknesses: The equivalence stated in
the preceding paragraph may be challenged. But I consider this equivalence to
hold - let the judge decide for emself.


And the FM also contains the sentence 



      A Frankenstein Monster is permitted to define its own mechanisms 
      for changing its own content, and any change to a Frankenstein 
      Monster adopted in accordance with its own mechanisms is legal. 


But I would say that, while the FM is permitted to define such mechanisms, it
doesn't actually do it, so this sentence establishes no explicit or implicit
permission to change the FM, after all.


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


Decision & Reasoning Judge: 


I find the Statement FALSE. 


The Caller's arguments included the following: 


(Caller's) Arguments: 


The Frankenstein Generator, 1672, requires among other things that 



      vii) All proposed Amendments to the Frankenstein Rule must
           consist of a single sentence of additional text specifying
           the properties and effects of a Frankenstein Monster, to be
           inserted between the first and last paragraphs.

However, the Frankenstein Monster, at the time specified in the statement,
contained the sentence



      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Frankenstein Monster
      is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing
      the Frankenstein Monsters, which is permitted only when a
Frankenstein Monster or set of Frankenstein Monsters explicitly
      or implicitly permits it.

It did not, however, contain any explicit or implicit permissions permitting
such changes.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


However, the Frankenstein Rule does contain the following clause: 


A Frankenstein Monster is permitted to define its own mechanisms 
      for changing its own content, and any change to a Frankenstein 
      Monster adopted in accordance with its own mechanisms is legal. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Any change to a Frankenstein Monster adopted in accordance with its own
mechanisms is legal." Now, in the absence of any clearly specified mechanisms,
is a given Amendment in accordance with them or not? Well, your mileage may
differ, but I consider this to be almost trivially true. One cannot be in
conflict with a non-existent law. Therefore, I declare that (as of this time),
the Frankenstein Monster gives implicit permission to change itself.


Vlad 


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


Decision & Reasoning Justiciar: 


Decision of the Justiciar: SUSTAIN the judgement of FALSE 


For trivial reasons.  The date in the statement is wrong for the caller's
argument to work, and there is no other reason for thinking the statement true.


This is a factual error, not a spelling (etc.) error, nor the use of a synonym
or abbreviation, so I can't use Rule 754 to Judge the statement that was
probably intended.


The caller states: 


  However, the Frankenstein Monster, at the time specified in the statement,
contained the sentence Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Frankenstein
Monster is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the
Frankenstein Monsters, which is permitted only when a Frankenstein Monster or
set of Frankenstein Monsters explicitly or implicitly permits it.
 



This sentence was reported on 6 September 1997, _not_ at the time specified in
the Statement.


The only sentence addition reported on Mon, 11 August 1997, was: 



      A Frankenstein Monster is permitted to define its own mechanisms 
      for changing its own content, and any change to a Frankenstein 
      Monster adopted in accordance with its own mechanisms is legal. 


There is no reason to think that this addition made changes impossible. 





======================================================================
Evidence: Extract from Mad Scientist's Report of 6 September 1997 
======================================================================
From: Chaos Harlequin particl-@servtech.com  
Date: Sat, 06 Sep 1997 09:52:28 -0700
To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Subject: BUS: Mad Scientist's Report 



Agora Nomic 
Mad Scientist's Report


Date of this Report: Sat, 6 September 1997 
Date of last Report: Mon, 11 August 1997



Week 1: 
[..] STEP 2: SENTENCE ADDITION 
========================= [..] 
The sentence to be added to the Frankenstein Rule reads:



      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Frankenstein Monster 
      is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing 
      the Frankenstein Monsters, which is permitted only when a 
      Frankenstein Monster or set of Frankenstein Monsters explicitly 
      or implicitly permits it. [..] 





======================================================================
Evidence: Extract from Mad Scientist's Report of 11 August 1997 
======================================================================
From: harlequi-@tmbg.org (Chaos Harlequin)  
To: nomi-@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
Subject: OFF: Mad Scientist's Report
Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:38:00 GMT 



Agora Nomic 
Mad Scientist's Report


Date of this Report: Mon, 11 August 1997 
Date of last Report: Tue, 5 August 1997 [..] The sentence to be added to the
Frankenstein Rule reads:


A Frankenstein Monster is permitted to define its own mechanisms 



      for changing its own content, and any change to a Frankenstein 
      Monster adopted in accordance with its own mechanisms is legal. 


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


Decision & Reasoning Speaker: 


It is the opinion of the Speaker that the Judgement in CFJ 941 should be
OVERTURNED, that the original Judgement be VACATED, and the original CFJ
DISMISSED.


The Statement of CFJ 941 refers to the "change to the Frankenstein Monster
assigned to 'Week 1', reported by the Mad Scientist on Mon, 11 August 1997".
This entity does not exist; nothing in the Report of the Mad Scientist posted on
11 August 1997 assigned anything to 'Week 1', as my fellow Justice elJefe has
noted.


There are two schools of reasoning regarding the truth values of statements
which contain definite descriptions of entities which do not exist; one school
holds that all such statements are categorically FALSE, while the other holds
that such statements are not well-formed and thus have no truth value.  I am of
the latter school.  I find that the Statement of CFJ 941 "can not logically
admit to either being TRUE or FALSE", and therefore this CFJ should properly
have been dismissed under Rule 1565(ii).


Respectfully submitted, 


General Chaos 
Speaker, Agora Nomic


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


Decision & Reasoning CotC: 


As my fellow Justice elJefe already noted, the change claimed to make future
Amendments impossible, was not reported on 11 August, although some other, much
less dangerous change was. However, there is something more to discuss. As can
be seen from the actual 11 August report, there is no ''change to the
Frankenstein Monster assigned to "Week 1",  reported by the Mad Scientist on
Mon, 11 August 1997,'' and thus also no time when it took effect.


To General Chaos this has let to a dismissal, as the truth of a statement about
a non-existing object cannot be decided, and even has no logical meaning.
However, I would not go that far. In my opinion some statements can and other
can't be decided. "The pink unicorn has 678 legs" is undecidable, but "The pink
unicorn has made me pregnant" is false. Maybe it has to do with its effects on
reality. But what about "All proposed  Amendments to the Frankenstein Rule were
made impossible by the  Frankenstein Generator when the pink unicorn was born"?
It's a close call, but to me it is false. And so I judge.


Normally it's my opinion that in case the decisive points are points that
neither the Judge nor the Appellants (how is that spelled?) have mentioned, the
Court of Appeals should ask for rejudgement, but in this case it is clear that
either FALSE or Dismissal is right, and their difference is of no importance.


Thus, I call for SUSTAINing the Judgement of FALSE. 


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