[cap-talk] Authority vs. Information Flow

[Toby Murray]

On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 11:27 -0800, Charles Landau wrote:
> 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.

This depends on your definition of causation. THe definition I use
allows Alice to have authority even when her behaviour is fixed (i.e.
fully deterministic). See my response to David's original reply for more
info.

> 
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> cap-talk mailing list
> cap-talk at mail.eros-os.org
> http://www.eros-os.org/mailman/listinfo/cap-talk