Or, the question could be "Are there any members in the set of UUs?" I think the question can be tweaked appropriately to cover the various issues.
A third response I thought of, as a quick and dirty one is this:
Noel takes a GCB, and then postulates something the GCB cannot do. And this is meant to be a legitimate problem.
What stops us from using an identical method of reasoning but in a Moore shift kind of way?
We can take a UU, and then postulate a GCB who cannot NOT know it. And pose it as a legitimate problem for the concept of UUs.
If the reasoning can be identical to Noel's argument, it would work equally well as Noel's argument, right?
A third response I thought of, as a quick and dirty one is this:
Noel takes a GCB, and then postulates something the GCB cannot do. And this is meant to be a legitimate problem.
What stops us from using an identical method of reasoning but in a Moore shift kind of way?
We can take a UU, and then postulate a GCB who cannot NOT know it. And pose it as a legitimate problem for the concept of UUs.
If the reasoning can be identical to Noel's argument, it would work equally well as Noel's argument, right?
