What does it mean for something to be "logically possible"?

[untermensche]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

 

[Bomb#20]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

Logic doesn't make things possible; illogic makes things impossible. For something to be logically possible there are two requirements. It must not involve a contradiction in terms, and the criteria for it must be clear.

So, that said, no, it isn't logically possible that Jesus was the son of god or that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods, because the words "god" and "miracle" have no clear meaning. It's of course logically possible to move faster than the speed of light; data and data models only address whether it's physically possible, which is a different question.

So what that means for an infinite past, anyone can figure out for himself. Is there anything unclear about what is meant by the hypothesis, "For every event, there existed at least one earlier event."? Can you exhibit a proof that taking that statement as a premise implies a self-contradiction?

 

[untermensche]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

Logic doesn't make things possible; illogic makes things impossible. For something to be logically possible there are two requirements. It must not involve a contradiction in terms, and the criteria for it must be clear.

So, that said, no, it isn't logically possible that Jesus was the son of god or that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods, because the words "god" and "miracle" have no clear meaning. It's of course logically possible to move faster than the speed of light; data and data models only address whether it's physically possible, which is a different question.

So what that means for an infinite past, anyone can figure out for himself. Is there anything unclear about what is meant by the hypothesis, "For every event, there existed at least one earlier event."? Can you exhibit a proof that taking that statement as a premise implies a self-contradiction?

That is merely an unsupported and unsupportable claim. In that regard it is nothing to take seriously.

There is no contradiction in saying the Big Bang is some miracle of some gods.

I agree the criteria is not clear. Nobody understands what a god is.

And nobody understands what it means for something to go on without end.

That is not a clear criteria at all. Where would I observe this phenomena?

 

[Random Person]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

"Present moments" occur sequentially, don't they?

 

[PyramidHead]

Logic deals with the relationship between concepts, not the relationship between concepts and the real world. The usefulness of logic is that it allows us to rule certain things out without having to check the real world. For something to be logically impossible, it must be self-contradictory, like a square circle or a married bachelor. We don't have to hold onto a sliver of doubt that somewhere in the universe, there may be a square circle. The concept of "square" contradicts the concept of "circle", so under those definitions we can be 100% positive that no such thing exists. Other than cases like that, nothing is logically impossible.

In casual language, "logic" is often used as a substitute for clear-headedness or common sense. That's a different sense of the term, and asking if something is logical by that definition may give you a different answer. It won't be a very useful answer, though. Common sense is often wrong. That's why we have science and philosophy.

 

[beero1000]

Logic deals with the relationship between concepts, not the relationship between concepts and the real world. The usefulness of logic is that it allows us to rule certain things out without having to check the real world. For something to be logically impossible, it must be self-contradictory, like a square circle or a married bachelor. We don't have to hold onto a sliver of doubt that somewhere in the universe, there may be a square circle. The concept of "square" contradicts the concept of "circle", so under those definitions we can be 100% positive that no such thing exists. Other than cases like that, nothing is logically impossible.

In casual language, "logic" is often used as a substitute for clear-headedness or common sense. That's a different sense of the term, and asking if something is logical by that definition may give you a different answer. It won't be a very useful answer, though. Common sense is often wrong. That's why we have science and philosophy.

Math nit pick: You should think carefully about defining 'square' and 'circle' before you say 'square circle' is self-contradictory. Lots of interesting metrics out there...

 

[PyramidHead]

Logic deals with the relationship between concepts, not the relationship between concepts and the real world. The usefulness of logic is that it allows us to rule certain things out without having to check the real world. For something to be logically impossible, it must be self-contradictory, like a square circle or a married bachelor. We don't have to hold onto a sliver of doubt that somewhere in the universe, there may be a square circle. The concept of "square" contradicts the concept of "circle", so under those definitions we can be 100% positive that no such thing exists. Other than cases like that, nothing is logically impossible.

In casual language, "logic" is often used as a substitute for clear-headedness or common sense. That's a different sense of the term, and asking if something is logical by that definition may give you a different answer. It won't be a very useful answer, though. Common sense is often wrong. That's why we have science and philosophy.

Math nit pick: You should think carefully about defining 'square' and 'circle' before you say 'square circle' is self-contradictory. Lots of interesting metrics out there...

That goes to Bomb's point about clear definitions, I suppose. Assume simple Euclidean geometry, then.

 

[Valjean]

Premises don't have to be true to generate a logical conclusion. A thing can be valid and still wrong.

 

[untermensche]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

"Present moments" occur sequentially, don't they?

Do you somehow have access to every moment ever to make comments on them?

Or can you only comment on a limited set of moments?

 

[untermensche]

Logic deals with the relationship between concepts, not the relationship between concepts and the real world. The usefulness of logic is that it allows us to rule certain things out without having to check the real world. For something to be logically impossible, it must be self-contradictory, like a square circle or a married bachelor. We don't have to hold onto a sliver of doubt that somewhere in the universe, there may be a square circle. The concept of "square" contradicts the concept of "circle", so under those definitions we can be 100% positive that no such thing exists. Other than cases like that, nothing is logically impossible.

In casual language, "logic" is often used as a substitute for clear-headedness or common sense. That's a different sense of the term, and asking if something is logical by that definition may give you a different answer. It won't be a very useful answer, though. Common sense is often wrong. That's why we have science and philosophy.

Is it logical to claim something that exists has no beginning?

Doesn't "something with no beginning" logically mean something that does not exist?

 

[Wiploc]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

What does it mean for something to be logically possible?

It means it's not a contradiction. Square circles are contradictions, as are married bachelors. Those don't exist in any possible world. They are not logically possible.

Other examples of logical impossibilities:
- Gods that are possible to see but not possible to see.
- Gods that are three but one.
- Gods that are merciful but perfectly just.
- Gods that are omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and coexist with evil.

None of those exist in any possible world.

What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

Whether X involves a logical contradiction.

How does logic make things possible?

I don't grant your premise. That's a bit like asking how a camera makes people visible.

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

Not sure what you're asking. Are we still talking about logical possibility?

All motion is relative. You are already moving faster than light relative to tachyons. If tachyons don't exist, then you are already moving faster than light relative to the frames of reference of hypothetical tachyons.

What you can't do is move faster than light relative to tardyons. But that's not prohibited by logical contradiction; it's only physically impossible, not logically impossible.

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

I can't make sense of that. Maybe you left out a word.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

I have the idea that you have twenty-seven cents in your pocket. That is logically possible because it could be true even if it doesn't happen to be true. (It's also physically possible because, you know, cents exist and twenty-seven of them would fit in a pocket. But that's not our point here.)

Compare the above to this statement: "The claim that you have twenty-seven cents in your pocket is both true and false." That's not true. It's a false statement. I don't have to know a thing about pennies or pockets to know that that's wrong. It's logically impossible. There is no possible world in which that claim is true.

 

[Wiploc]

Is it logical to claim something that exists has no beginning?

It may not be logical to make any claim without reason to believe it is true.

But maybe you mean to ask whether it is logically possible for something to exist without a beginning? Would that be contradictory? If we do a grade-school-level analysis (which I'm comfortable with), then our choice is between a beginning and an infinite regression. Neither of those is comfortable to contemplate. In either case, we may wind up screaming, "How would that work?"

But we can't rule something out just because it makes us uncomfortable. If we can't articulate a logical contradiction inherent in unbegun things, then we can't say they are logically impossible.

Doesn't "something with no beginning" logically mean something that does not exist?

No, it just means it didn't begin.

If the universe did begin, then what happened before that? What caused the beginning? If we don't get to take those questions as proof that there was no beginning, then we don't get to take, "How can something exist without a beginning?" as proof that everything began.

And if we leave grade-school-level analysis behind, we have to deal with things like Hawking's "finite but unbounded" universe. I don't know how to cope with that.

Sometimes we have to just admit that we don't know.

 

[untermensche]

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

In what possible world is it true?

How do you know about these possible worlds and what is possible in them?

 

[untermensche]

Doesn't "something with no beginning" logically mean something that does not exist?

No, it just means it didn't begin.

If the building of the skyscraper didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the journey didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the life didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the universe didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

 

[Random Person]

"Present moments" occur sequentially, don't they?

Do you somehow have access to every moment ever to make comments on them?

Or can you only comment on a limited set of moments?

Ha, what an goofy question. You don't actually believe that I have access to every moment or that it would even be necessary to, do you?


Time = change.

Unless we are throwing physics out the window, time has to occur sequentially or everything we know about the physical world isn't valid.

You may own a car in the "present moment" but the process of acquiring the car would have had to occur in a preceding "present moment."

 

[untermensche]

Do you somehow have access to every moment ever to make comments on them?

Or can you only comment on a limited set of moments?

Ha, what an goofy question. You don't actually believe that I have access to every moment or that it would even be necessary to, do you?


Time = change.

Unless we are throwing physics out the window, time has to occur sequentially or everything we know about the physical world isn't valid.

You may own a car in the "present moment" but the process of acquiring the car would have had to occur in a preceding "present moment."

Change occurs sequentially.

Spacetime is the freedom that allows change. The medium in which change occurs.

It is not something occurring. It is just there. It is what allows things to occur.

 

[ryan]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

Here is an example of using logic that may help us in the real world.

Think of some bridge with a maximum load weight of 1000 kg. We start with an axiom that the bridge holds a maximum of 1000 kg, and anything more will collapse the bridge.

A real world use for a simple - but crucially important - inductive logic says that if I have a 1200 kg truck, the total load will collapse the bridge.

If I were illogical, I would say that more than 1000 kg will not collapse the bridge and clearly I would be wrong. That is a contradiction with real world consequences.

 

[Wiploc]

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

In what possible world is it true?

How do you know about these possible worlds and what is possible in them?

Not sure how to respond. My best guess is that you aren't familiar with modal logic. Is that the case?

 

[Wiploc]

No, it just means it didn't begin.

If the building of the skyscraper didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the journey didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the life didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the universe didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

Let me see if I can mimic your argument in such a way that we get the opposite result:

If you didn't have parents, then you don't exist.

If your parents didn't have parents, then they didn't exist.

If your grandparents didn't have parents, then your grandparents didn't exist.

And so on back forever. If there was ever a first person, it didn't have parents so it didn't exist.

Therefore, the only way you can exist is if you are the result of an unbegun infinite regress.

I don't think that's a compelling argument, but I do think it is exactly as strong as yours.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

In what possible world is it true?

How do you know about these possible worlds and what is possible in them?

The world is not as we perceive it. Extrapolating our perception of the world to Reality is a mistake. Reality is bizarre and counterintuitive.
God plays dice.