82,503
edits
Agreement to agree: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "The sort of thing a co-calculation agent is expected to do — one that law students learn in lesson one of ''The Law of Contract'' one logically cannot be obliged to do,...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The sort of thing a [[co-calculation agent]] is expected to do — one that law students learn in lesson one of ''The Law of Contract'' one logically cannot be obliged to do, is agree that you will, later agree. This paradox curls back reflexively on itself, for if you agree to it, you must ''have'' agreed, but if you have ''not'' agreed it, you can’t have. | The sort of thing a [[co-calculation agent]] is expected to do — one that law students learn in lesson one of ''The Law of {{tag|Contract}}'' one logically cannot be obliged to do, is agree that you will, later, agree on something you cannot be bothered to agree upon just yet. But oh, perfidious syntax of our earthly legal frames! | ||
This paradox curls back reflexively on itself, for if you agree to it, you must ''have'' agreed, but if you have ''not'' agreed it, you can’t have. | |||
This sort of thing made Kurt Goedel very famous, but unpopular with Bertrand Russel and David Hilbert. It is an example of the necessary incompleteness of law as a logical system. | This sort of thing made Kurt Goedel very famous, but unpopular with Bertrand Russel and David Hilbert. It is an example of the necessary incompleteness of law as a logical system. | ||