Re: virus: Fundamentals

ken sartor (
Thu, 28 Mar 1996 15:11:32 -0600

>I claimed that something whose existence is logically impossible
>cannot exist. If you have a better criterion, I would be interested
>to hear it. Or are you willing to believe in anything?

I believe in things that can be empirically shown. On issues
that have no data, i withhold judgement. I distinguish between
personal belief (regardless of strength) and 'proof'.

>We have to make provisional assumptions based on incomplete
>information in order to act. Maybe the evils we see around us
>are ultimately beneficial in the long run or from a wider
>perspective, but that doesn't mean we should sit back and
>watch them happen.

One acts however one wishes. This does not require any
judgement of the universe.

>It probably won't convince you since it is based entirely
>on logical arguments.

Perhaps not. Especially if the underlying assumptions seem
to be free of observable data.

>I think it matters a great deal. For instance, why invest in
>longevity research if you believe in an afterlife?

I believe after i finish a really good book, life will go on,
but still i wish i could make the experience last just a
little longer ;)

>Counterargument: for any strange aspect of the universe you care to
>point out, an imaginative person can make up something even stranger.

After the observation, we tend to organize the data. It's thinking
of these things ahead of time... But it may also be true that
some aspects of the universe are not comprehensible to humans.
Wait a few millennium and we may find out (no need to decide
now, after all). However, if you want to give it a go, something
stranger than wave-particle duality would be interesting.