virus: Re: Loose threads

C. David Noziglia (
Sun, 05 May 1996 18:50:24 -0700

David McFadzean wrote:

> I am simultaneously elated that the quality of discussion on
> this list for the past few weeks has exceeded my high expectations, and
> frustrated that I have been unable to participate as much as I'd like lately
> due to work-related issues (mostly setting into motion the creation of a new
> company for developing applications for the web, which is very exciting because
> it means among other things an upgrade of hardware and bandwidth for
> and the opportunity to spend more time and effort on the Virus pages).
> Congratulations, David, on the new company, and I'm sure that everyone on the
list is wishing you the best of success.

> One thing I've noticed as I've been catching up on all the messages the past
> few days is that there are a lot of loose threads of discussion that should
> be tied up. The biggest disadvantage I can see to this mailing list medium is
> that it is very easy to move on to new topics of discussion without
> closure on at least some of the more relevant discussions and capture
> the results for posterity. Otherwise this list will fall into a pattern I've
> seen in almost every newsgroup I've bothered to read where topics are endlessly
> rehashed as new people tune in.
> Ageed, except, closure? Get real. With so many strong opinions here, even
with the best will in the world we'll never get everyone to agree. I do
think that your idea of summing up the state of various threads is an
excellent one, but suggest that you should farm out that onerous duty to
others on the list (perhaps those who've started them in the first place?) so
that you have a LITTLE time to devote to your business!

> 2) QM vs. logic (was Re: virus: Fundamentals)
> Dan Henry <>
> >Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you two aren't really disagreeing.
> Except that David is pointing out that the wave/particle duality may not be
> >the contradiction we sometimes think it is. It is illogical to conclude
> >that quanta behave in a contradictory fashion, just because we can't
> >reconcile the macro behavior of billiard balls and ocean waves.
> If this is true, then the advent of QM does not mean the demise of logic,
> right?

Of course. I may start another thread on this, though, about a new idea of
logic, based on auto-catalytic sets.
> 4) Religion & Logic
> This thread actually has to do with the justification of logic, or how logic
> is "better" than faith (or not).

> I actually agree with John on this one because I think Joel's and Pat's
> objections can be avoided (or at least ameliorated) with the tenets of
> pan-critical rationalism. But that will have to be the topic of a new thread.
> I suggest on this one we refer back to St. Dennis, who concluded that faith
and reason really don't have anything to say to each other that the other can
accept. (?)

C. David Noziglia
Wellington, New Zealand

"Blessed are those who have no expectations, for they will never be disappointed." Kautiliya Shakhamuni Sidhartha Gautama Buddha

"Things are the way they are because they got that way."