🚀 go-pugleaf

>>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.

I kind of let this slide by the first time (but not this time :-)).

I can't agree with either of these.  Questions of logical possibility seem
to me to be very much like mathematical questions.  And in this realm, it is
quite clear that there is no "burden of proof"; you assume you don't know
until you prove it one way or another.  I think this is the only appropriate
standard of proof for issues of logical possibility.