> and thereby negate the argument and conclude that it is impossible to
state that any
> letterbox is missing.

Unless you are just having a bad dream.

Don

We're thankful that at least you saved us the time and expense of the ferry ride!
:-)

Mark

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Randy Hall


Anyone who has searched for my "Block Island Ocean Letterbox" knows
what I'm talking about :)

Cheers
RandyRecent Activity
17New Members
Visit Your Group
Y! Sports for TV
Game Day Companion
Live fantasy league
& game stats on TV.
Yahoo! Finance
It's Now Personal
Guides, news,
advice & more.
Best of Y! Groups
Check out the best
of what Yahoo!
Groups has to offer..


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> but given a finite system it is only a function of time and resources
> to prove that a known entity is or is not present in that system. If
> a letterbox clue says that a letterbox is within a certain area and
> you have correctly interpreted the language and searched in an
> adequately large area you can state with some degree of certainty
> that the box is or is not present. You can easily have 100%
> certainty that it is present, it would require significant resources
> and time to state with 100% certainty that it is not present but it
> can be done, ergo, no logical fallacy.

Rebuttal to the rebuttal:

Summary: I find the rebuttal simply pushes the problem to another
assumption of existance.

Anyway, there are alot of "ifs" in the above quoted text. I'll grant
the assumption that it is a finite system, even tho I don't necessarily
believe it, because it doesn't matter.

The assumption that "you have correctly interpreted the language" is a
big assumption to swallow, as that is the crux of the original argument.
I've had people "correctly interpret the language", tell me the box
is missing, describe the area, etc, and be off by counties, towns, or
states. I also find "with some degree of certainty", which your
rebuttal hinges on in some sense, categorically different than
"safely assume", which is what I was responding to. Perhaps hair
splitting, but I would not have responded to "with some degree of
certainty" (because, quite frankly, I find the phrase a bit vacuous).
But, this doesn't matter that much either in my rebuttal. While
appropriate to the question of letterboxing and interpreting clues,
it is not all that rhetorically interesting (at least to me).

The the big assumption that fails on closer inspection is: "it
would require significant resources and time to state with 100%
certainty that it is not present but it can be done, ergo, no
logical fallacy."

If you look at the Laplacian view of physics, which asserts that the
universe is a finite, determinate system, and that if you knew the
positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe, you
can calculate what it will look like 100 years from now. In theory,
true, but in practice false, as, from the point of view of information
theory, it is not possible to perform the calculations (the universe
would die of heat death well before the calculations get to square
one, and/or doesn't have enough EM to build and program the computing
equipment -- AFAIK, this argument isn't controversial). And its not
my point to debate whether Laplace was right (he was writing before
quantum theory was developed, for example, forgetting any metaphysical
arguments); the point is that there is a big difference between "in
theory knowable", and "in practice knowable".

I claim the same principle causes the above assumption, on which
your rebuttal depends, to also fail. To wit "but it can be done".
No proof is offered that "it can be done", and, as I alluded to,
I counterclaim that it is too complex to be done, regardless of
how much free energy there is to do it. To wit, I specifically
claim that there is not enough free energy within the letterboxing
community to search a sufficiently complex area to prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that the box is missing. (And I guess we could
argue bounds, whether the argument should be couched within the
universe of letterboxing free energy or universal free energy; I
don't think it matters for my rebuttal to work, nor do I think it
is interesting).

Your assumption that there is enough free energy to do it is akin
to assuming there is enough free energy to search every crevice
of existence for God, thus rebutting the ontological argument
without actually demonstrating the existence of said free energy;
that is, without actually doing it. That just pushes the problem
of existence to something else, unfortunately, and, at the end of
the day, does become a faith argument.

Anyone who has searched for my "Block Island Ocean Letterbox" knows
what I'm talking about :)

Cheers
Randy

--- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:

Rebuttal to the rebuttal to the rebuttal:

Ok, let's split some hairs. We'll probably end in an argument about semantics by parsing
every statement but I'm game.

You made the broad generalization that "it is not possible to prove non-existence, only
existence". You then applied this to a specific argument about a specific entity in a finite
system. I stand by my assertion that there are many instances in which we prove
nonexistence and further that we can in many (NB: I said many not all) instances do so
with little expenditure of energy. I was careful to clarify that there are instances in which
we cannot prove nonexistence such as proving that something is nonexistent in an infinite
system or proving something is nonexistent which is neither tangible nor proven a priori
to exist in any form. Getting back to the point I was making, this negation by accusation of
logical fallacy is overused and only applies in special circumstances...and not in this one.
All non-virtual letterboxes are tangible and most if not all are limited to the the upper 100
yards of the earth's crust and lower 5000 feet of it's atmosphere. It is then a matter of the
specificity of the clue and the limitations of language. Regardless of how you feel about
language we both must accept its limitations because letterbox clues must be
communicated and that requires some form of language and all language systems, in-fact
any communications, have inherent limitations. (Want to debate the problem of authorial
intent? That's a big one when it comes to letterbox clues ain't it)

If I misunderstood you and you meant that you cannot prove actual existence of some
entity in all instances of that entity (the nature of existence itself) then I withdraw but I
believe that everyone here can accept the existence of letterboxes. From there it is only a
matter of probability. Here again you're trying to negate my argument with broad
statements. You state in essence that because you can conceive of a letterbox about
whose whereabouts so little is known that it would require an impractical amount of
energy to locate that you have negated my argument, not so.

The expenditure of energy to prove that something agreed to be tangible does not exist is
determined by the amount of energy with in the finite system that contains it or which is
claimed to contain it. If the clues or language are vague then the degree of certainty with
which you can state that it is missing, after expending a reasonable amount of energy
searching, decreases; I grant you that, it doesn't drop to zero however. Sure there are
limits of practicality (Who wouldn't consume all the energy on earth looking for a
Mapsurfer box) but practical is not actual; the former only approaches zero the later
reaches zero. Somewhere around the midpoint between the clue that says 'this letterbox is
at the following GPS coordinates' and the one that says 'this letterbox is somewhere on
earth' those limits of practicality are exceeded but I think we could agree that most boxes
are in the range if higher specificity.

Without debating the numbers and bounds I think it is fair to state that it is likely or
probably or safe to assume (ack language again) that a given letterbox is missing and if
someone says so about one of mine I will check. I will not assume however that no one can
prove nonexistence therefor no one can state that my letterbox is missing. Here is where
theory meets practicality. I will go check and if needed replace my missing box you seem
to be saying that you, realizing that no one can prove nonexistence, would stay
comfortably at home confident of your interlocutors false logic.

I have no idea what you just said!! LOL

Lady Hydrangea Prisspott nee Hedge wrote: --- In letterbox-usa@yahoogroups.com, Randy Hall wrote:
> it is
> not possible to prove non-existence, only existence. Likewise
> with letterboxes, obviously.
>
Disclaimer:
As Randy said I don't want to get into a religious argument, we are discussing rhetoric and
using the classic philosophic arguments about God (specifically the Ontologic Argument)
as examples without debating the the actual merits of any belief system.

Rebuttal:
Sorry Randy but I don't agree. This logical fallacy argument is over used and does not
negate an argument in all circumstances. It is impossible to prove nonexistence of
something that has never been proven to exist (God, or something infinite or in an infinite
system) however, we prove the nonexistence of known (proven to exist) entities in finite
systems everyday. A doctor can prove that you don't have a tumor in your fibula. Or a
bomb squad that there's no bomb in a building. Or a child that there are no tater tots on
their plate.

It's all probabilities (of course our very atoms are probabilities) but given a finite system it
is only a function of time and resources to prove that a known entity is or is not present in
that system. If a letterbox clue says that a letterbox is within a certain area and you have
correctly interpreted the language and searched in an adequately large area you can state
with some degree of certainty that the box is or is not present. You can easily have 100%
certainty that it is present, it would require significant resources and time to state with
100% certainty that it is not present but it can be done, ergo, no logical fallacy. The
accusation of logical fallacy as a device to negate an argument is often misused (creating
it's own logical fallacy). Unless you are going to argue that the existence of such a thing as
a letterbox is in question then I don't see a logical fallacy nor do I see a flaw in the
assertion that one can state with a reasonable degree of certainty that a given letterbox is
likely to be missing.

You cannot state that the argument that a letterbox is missing is always a logical fallacy
and thereby negate the argument and conclude that it is impossible to state that any
letterbox is missing.






Nicki Sommer TACTM Angel #2124
dnsom5945@yahoo.com
Save up to 50% using unmounted
stamps by The Angel CompanyTM
Visit my website to learn more.
http://www.freewebs.com/nickitacangel2124/
http://tyandmaddismom.blogspot.com/
For all your Power Sports needs:
http://www.ddpowersportsltd.com/













---------------------------------
Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story.
Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>> I have no idea what you just said!! LOL



Ahhh, but can you PROVE that?



-wassamatta_u





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sure can!!! Clueless!!!

Mark Berkeland wrote: >> I have no idea what you just said!! LOL

Ahhh, but can you PROVE that?

-wassamatta_u

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






Nicki Sommer TACTM Angel #2124
dnsom5945@yahoo.com
Save up to 50% using unmounted
stamps by The Angel CompanyTM
Visit my website to learn more.
http://www.freewebs.com/nickitacangel2124/
http://tyandmaddismom.blogspot.com/
For all your Power Sports needs:
http://www.ddpowersportsltd.com/













---------------------------------
Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]