Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ll-xn!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!brahms!desj
From: desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Impossibilities (...and Recommended Reading)
Message-ID: <15763@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Mon, 22-Sep-86 19:38:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.15763
Posted: Mon Sep 22 19:38:41 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Sep-86 22:37:46 EDT
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 57
Xref: mnetor net.sf-lovers:8637 talk.philosophy.misc:56

In article <346@unc.unc.UUCP> gallmeis@unc.UUCP (Bill Gallmeister) writes:
>
>2. Man has rules and the universe -- just kind of works.  In reality, there
>	is no E, or M, or C, and certainly no "squaring".  These are
>	labels man uses to define our universe.  They are only true so
>	far as we can see today.

   There is a name for the opposite belief -- that the behavior of the
universe can be understood.  It is called 'science.'  Understandably,
therefore, those of us who consider ourselves 'scientists' don't go
along with your opinion as expressed above.

>3. The universe is uncharacterizable in its entirety by Man, because
>	we are only Man, and when we characterize a thing, we
>	bring our own bias into the matter.

   There is no evidence to support your statement (that the universe is
uncharacterizable), and there is substantial evidence to the contrary
(every successful prediction of science provides such evidence).

>  For instance, when we
>	say that it's impossible to go faster than the speed of light,
>	we are implying that the only way to get from A to B is by
>	traversing some connected path from A to B.  This is reason-
>	able for us to assume -- for US to assume. Today.

   I won't dissect this particular example, except to note that no one
has said that FTL travel is impossible.  What has been said is that
FTL travel is equivalent to time travel.  This is a logical necessity
(not an belief) under the single assumption that the laws of physics
are the same in all inertial reference frames -- an assumption which
is based on both experimental observation and philosophical elegance.

>The point of this disconnected raving is that the rules we posit are only
>as good as the environment they are proposed in.  What is God's Truth
>today (pick your dogma;  any dogma!) can be disproven in an instant if we
>poke our heads out of the little rut we live in.  FTL transport will become
>a reality, and all it will mean is that we were wrong. Again.

   Or it will never become a reality, and all it will mean is that you
were wrong.  Again.

   I can't help wondering how you can be so sure of yourself, in criti-
cizing others for being too sure of themselves.

   -- David desJardins
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,net.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Impossibilities (...and Recommended Reading)
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <3279@caip.RUTGERS.EDU> <15634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <346@unc.unc.UUCP> <15761@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: 
Reply-To: desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Keywords: