Information, etc.

Chris · 12 Apr 2006, 19:54 · from 2006-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: rasputin_ at hotmail.com (Chris)
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:54:18 +0000
Subject: (urth) Information, etc.
In-Reply-To: <1f7617370604112029h19acdffcufb70c66cf0f2faa2 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY102-F209B2FEE8DB82C587A291786C20 at phx.gbl>

>I see what you mean -- but I read the discussion as being about
>physical, as opposed to logical, impossibilities. (Chris? Comment?)
>I suppose that you could argue that there's a logical impossibility
>in God's violating the physical laws He established, but only if
>you assume that He meant for Himself to be bound by them in
>the first place.

Generally yes, although keep in mind that logical and physical 
impossibilities were not clearly separated from each other with a lot of 
these thinkers. What the rationalists really wanted was a way to derive all 
the physical laws from logic, and even some non-rationalists have this 
hidden assumption that there is such a connection... that deep down, if you 
knew enough, you would see that physical impossibilities were also logical 
impossibilities. At the same time they *did* distinguish between physical 
science and logic, and the statements/truths thereof, but on actual 
examination I think most of these boil down to the simple fact that we don't 
know enough about physical science. You'll probably catch me lumping the two 
together in that last post as well - IIRC Descartes sometimes blurs the line 
between logical/physical impossibilities in just that way, in the space of a 
single sentence, and that was what I was echoing.

There are some modern philosophers who blur this line in a different way, 
and with a somewhat more limited scope, but to be honest I don't fully 
understand them and, at first glance I'm not particularly enamored with 
their arguments.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net