The problem of action at a temporal distance

[yeshe.tenley]

@Soren

1. Can you demonstrate Jayarava’s system leads to a logical contradiction?

I don’t know, but that was the proposal. To my mind, I haven’t started. Jayarava thinks the game has already been played and that he has won. I have no hope, desire, or motivation to try again.

@Soren

2. If you do so, can Jayarava show that you introduced any new assumptions?

It was my hypothesis that he could not unless he invoked LEM. I do not accept LEM as a premise. Saying that by my not accepting LEM I am therefore committed to a ‘fixed view’ is itself an invocation of LEM to my mind. It is equivalent to this:

1. “All statements are either true or false.” ← LEM
2. “That statement itself is either true or false.” ← App LEM
3. “By not accepting 1 you must conclude 2 is false.” ← NEG
4. “Therefore it is true that your fixed view is that LEM is false.” ← DNE

I don’t want to occupy or play in this binary world.

@Soren

If you accept the LEM, then 1 is potentially easier for you

I do not think this is true.

@Soren

but it looks like it is because you also do not want 2 to be easy. Is that accurate?

No. I do not want a conclusion - a non-affirming negation - to be turned into an affirming negation by my opponent at the end. By showing that the view he puts forth is contradictory I am thus forced to conclude the opposite of his view as affirmatively true by indirect proof.

@Soren

1. Is it valid for Yeshe to use the LEM when he derives a contradiction within Jayarava’s views, but also hold that Jayarava cannot use the LEM to derive a contradiction in Yeshe’s views?

I don’t want to use LEM. I don’t want Jay to use LEM. LEM is not a part of what I’d agree to. Why? Because the rules are the rules we come to by mutual agreement. Jay says that by playing with the rule of non-contradiction that I’m somehow agreeing to the fixed view of non-contradiction and making it my own. That’s not at all how I define “fixed view.” I simply see no way that the law of non-contradiction can be omitted and still have any chance at communication. Jay’s foisting of this upon me as a “fixed view” is tantamount to saying that the only way I can truly have no fixed views is to stay completely silent. Since I have not stayed completely silent, then I have already lost. That simply is not what I think of as a fixed view. Jay and others are perfectly welcome to disagree.

@Soren

2. Is it valid for Yeshe to use the LEM when he derives a contradiction within Jayarava’s views, but also hold that Jayarava cannot use the LEM to show that Yeshe introduced a new view?

No. I do not want to use LEM nor assert that I need to.

@Soren

3. Is it valid for Yeshe to use the law of non-contradiction when he analyzes Jayarava’s views, but also hold that Jayarava cannot use the LEM to show that Yeshe introduced a new view?

Only if Jay agreed would this have been acceptable. If he did not, then I would not have played. We could have just disagreed respectfully.

@Soren

Anyway, it would be a shame if the game never got properly started because 3 was debated.

Jay states that he has won already. There is no point in playing again. Nor do I think it would be beneficial for anyone.