Oberon wrote:

Nnelg wrote:

If you happen to have a logical proof as to why there must not be, then I will completely rescind this statement.

No logical proof. Just a proof by absence. No turn we have seen has ever stretched on forever, therefore it's logical to assume that one cannot, or that we'd have seen some mention of such a stratagem. Or

*at the very least*, that the argument that the turn

*can* stretch on forever needs to come up with

*stronger* evidence to be considered seriously. I seem to be being contradicted by the argument that since something hasn't been dis-proven, that it must therefore be possible. That is a specious argument. To prove that something is possible requires a much stronger backing of factual evidence.

And I've provided plenty of rationale why such a theory of an endless turn is contradicted by many other evidences and cases which we have seen to date. I've seen no such rationale from the "endless turn" camp. Just idle speculation with no backing evidence.

I know that it is impossible to disprove a negative. I can't "prove" that a turn cannot go on forever using the evidence we have available to us. But it's also impossible to prove something on the basis of no evidence, and there is no evidence that a turn can go on forever. Just common sense.

Argument A:

1. IF AND ONLY IF we are omniscient, THEN it is NOT possible we haven't seen everything that is possible.

2. THEREFORE IF we are NOT omniscient, THEN it is possible we haven't seen everything that is possible.

3. We are NOT omniscient of what happens in Erfworld.

4. THEREFORE it is possible we haven't seen everything that is possible in Erfworld.

Argument B:

1. IF AND ONLY IF we have NOT seen an event occur AND there are known forces directly opposing such an event from occurring THEN can we conclude it is likely that said event is impossible.

2. There are NOT known forces directly opposing a turn from stretching on forever.

3. THEREFORE we can NOT conclude that it is likely that it is impossible for turns to stretch on forever.

Argument C:

1. IF common sense has proven unreliable in a given field in the past THEN common sense should NOT be relied on when working in that field.

2. What is possible in Erfworld has often gone against common sense.

3. THEREFORE common sense should NOT be relied on when extrapolating what is possible in Erfworld.

Argument D:

1. IF AND ONLY IF a theory has been previously been held in consensus as correct THEN can it be the leading theory.

2. IF a theory is NOT the leading theory, THEN it can NOT be be assumed in absence of conflicting data.

3. IF there has NOT been a prior held consensus, THEN any given theory must NOT be the leading theory.

4. THEREFORE IF there has NOT been a prior held consensus, THEN any given theory can NOT be assumed in absence of conflicting data.

5. "Turns cannot stretch on forever" is a theory.

6. There has NOT been a prior held consensus on this question.

7. THEREFORE "turns cannot stretch on forever" can NOT be assumed in absence of conflicting data.

Argument E:

1. IF I have made my point, THEN I should stop talking.

2. I still have more I could say.

3. I have made my point already.

4. THEREFORE I should stop talking.