From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:35:54 EST 1992
Article 4324 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Monkey Room
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <68723@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Mar5.201931.1980@psych.toronto.edu> <68821@netnews.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.212917.17573@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 21:29:17 GMT

In article <68821@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <1992Mar5.201931.1980@psych.toronto.edu>, michael@psych (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>The example above is *not* physically impossible.
>
>I said it contradicts reality.  So I don't see the point.

My remarks weren't intended to generate a lot of controversy, and I have
quite honestly been surprised at the volume of responses.  Oh, well.

As far as the above comment, I was merely pointing out that such as situation
is *possible* given the "reality" that we know.  It certainly is *extremely*
unlikely, but it *is* possible.  I took "contradicts reality" to mean
"is not possible", since otherwise *any* low probability event that *actually*
occurs could be said to "contradict reality".  This is really just a matter
of terminology, and I don't think it's worth pursuing.

- michael




