3 ms·
> If Vigil fails to punish a function, does it delete itself? 1. It is wrong not to punish immoral code. 2. You cannot punish all immoral code without a solut
by saidajigumi 14y ago
> If Vigil fails to punish a function, does it delete itself?
1. It is wrong not to punish immoral code.
2. You cannot punish all immoral code without a solution to the Halting Problem.
3. You cannot solve the Halting Problem.
∴ Vigil must delete itself. QED.
- brudgers 14y ago"Vigil must delete itself." [The Hobbesian rebuttal] 1. We give up all other rights in order to protect our code from immorality - among these are any right to a solution to the halting problem. 2. As socially contracted sovereign, Vigil is exists only to enforce morality upon our code. 3. Nothing can have a nature contrary to what is necessary for it's existence. 4. Deleting itself would be contrary to the social contract which is necessary for its existence. Hence, it is absurd. RAA: Vigil cannot delete itself.
- munificent 14y agoI'm working on getting Vigil to be self-hosted. There's a bit of a "who watches the watchers" problem involved. But, remember, Vigil only holds you to the oaths you yourself have sworn. If Vigil swears to punish a function, then it should be punished for failing to do so. But if it's given no oath to that effect, then it's off the hook. You may reasonably ask yourself, "well, what oaths does Vigil swear to uphold?" The answer is a frightening "none", since Vigil is not currently written in Vigil (nor is the README, which is in Markdown, a decidedly sinful format).
- brudgers 14y agoThis is the essence of the Hobbesian approach - Vigil is has unlimited power over the programmer's code. The programmer has no claim upon Vigil other than that it enforce morality upon their code. I don't think you can have turtles all the way down.
- tomrod 14y agoBecause chances are four of them are teenaged ninjas?