barrington interview

Gerry Quinn · 15 Oct 2014, 00:13 · from 2014-October.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: gerry at bindweed.com (Gerry Quinn)
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 01:13:36 +0100
Subject: (urth) barrington interview
In-Reply-To: <543DB9EE.2000004 at hyraxes.com>
References: <BLU175-W506FA3CE08D549F76A5127CFAD0 at phx.gbl>
	<543DB9EE.2000004 at hyraxes.com>
Message-ID: <543DBC30.8000500 at bindweed.com>

On 15/10/2014 01:03, Dave Lebling wrote:
> You can never prove a negative. Show some evidence that there is 
> something that indicates the positive (as you propose it) might be 
> true. Just saying "we don't know" is both untrue for large swathes of 
> the universe, and basically tendentious without proposing any other 
> view. Sure, you might say "God can do anything" (and I forget if you 
> are in that camp) but show something that indicates that's something 
> that has happened.

I thought of that earlier.  Saying there can be parts of the universe 
where logic doesn't apply is like saying "God is omnipotent, so he must 
be able to make a stone he can't lift".  The best answer seems to be 
that definitions of omnipotence that allow logical contradictions are 
ill-formed.  When the irresistable force meets the immovable object... 
then you must have described at least one of them wrong.

When you talk about a world where logic doesn't apply, then by 
definition you aren't making sense.

- Gerry Quinn

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