🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep18.011924.22771@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <Buqq86.7oJ.2@cs.cmu.edu> tycchow+@cs.cmu.edu (Timothy Chow) writes:
>>
>>The disagreement between Dave Chalmers and Randall Holmes seems to boil down
>>to a question about which of the following holds about "logical possibility":
>>
>>1. Something that appears to us to be conceptually coherent is logically
>>   possible unless proven otherwise.
>>2. Nothing is logically possible until it is proven to be so.
>
>This seems a fair assessment.
>
>I tend to side with Randall on this.  But it is perhaps a quibble about
>words.  I would have no problem if Dave had said "plausible" or even
>"possible".  But when he attached the adjective "logical" to the
>possibility, it seemed to me he was overstating his case.

On the contrary, logical possibility is weak, much weaker than,
say, physical possibility.  It's arguable that even "plausible"
is stronger (so very implausible things might nonetheless be
logically possible).  And an unqualified "possible" is too
ambiguous.  Logical possibility is about as inclusive as you
can get, short of "anything goes".