[cap-talk] Authority vs. Information Flow

[Charles Landau]

At 12:41 AM -0800 2/14/08, David Wagner wrote:
>Toby Murray writes:
>>Example 2: In which Authority exists, but perhaps not Info Flow
>>---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>Now imagine the same scenario, except that now there is a third party,
>>Dave. Dave also has a button like Alice, that turns on the light in
>>Bob's room when it is pressed. Both Alice and Dave now have control over
>>the light.
>>
>  >We presume further, that Bob's behaviour is fully specified and does not
>>permit the possibility that Bob will refuse to push his button if Alice
>  >hasn't already pushed hers. We make a symmetric assumption for Alice.
>  >Whoever pushes their button first, then, causes the light to turn on.
>
>MarkM's thesis defines
>authority as causation through overt channels.

Toby said "[Dave's] behaviour is fully specified and ... We make a 
symmetric assumption for Alice." In that case Alice's behavior is 
fully specified and she cannot cause anything. I ask Toby to clarify 
his intent.

If Dave's (but not Alice's) behavior is specified and known to Bob 
and Alice, then Alice can trivially communicate with Bob. Just push 
the button some time when Dave is not pushing it.