🚀 go-pugleaf

   Is the proof of the finiteness of the universe from the existance of
existance at all similar to the following proof of God's existance?
1. We define God to be blueness; He is, moreover, the blue of blueness and
   the blueness of blue.
2. It therefore follows that God must be, since without blueness there can
   be no blue, and atheists are blue because of the overwhelming meta-
   physical despair their rejection of God creates; QED.
   Could this debate about existance and what does or does not follow from it
be moved to another thread? Or a connection with hidden variables shown?
Or (least I be accused of relying on an outdated binary logic) will it be
necessary for hordes of sneering positivists to descend upon this thread?
	Cosma Rohilla Shalizi
	lizi@ocf.berkeley.edu
	larval physicist
-- 
"Some savages are persuaded by the 'natural light' that it is their duty to
 eat people, and even Voltaire's savages, who are led by the voice of reason
 to hold that one should only eat Jesuits, are not wholly satisfactory."
-Bertrand Russell on Rousseau in _A History of Western Philosophy_, p. 694