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

[untermensche]

What postulates about time do you think are possible?
We don't know if time has an eight. If it is infinite.

So we can't possibly know if time can roll one.

If we can't possibly know if something is possible it is not logical to say it is.

Since we are talking about logic, all I have to do is assume/postulate:

1) for every second that has passed one second passed before it.

That's it; that's a logical possibility. This implies that an infinite number of seconds have passed before any second.

You can't talk about "every second that has passed".

You know very little about that set.

Not nearly enough to make absolute claims about it.

Okay, so you do not like my premise, but infinity is still logically possibly using it. I can put practically the same postulate in more specific terms.

1) There have always been quantum fluctuations.

This is not scientifically supported, but it doesn't need to be scientific to be logically possible.

You're merely assuming the thing you say possible. Not demonstrating it.

You have no ideas if there have always been anything.

What you can speak logically about begins at the Big Bang.

 

[ryan]

What postulates about time do you think are possible?
We don't know if time has an eight. If it is infinite.

So we can't possibly know if time can roll one.

If we can't possibly know if something is possible it is not logical to say it is.

Since we are talking about logic, all I have to do is assume/postulate:

1) for every second that has passed one second passed before it.

That's it; that's a logical possibility. This implies that an infinite number of seconds have passed before any second.

You can't talk about "every second that has passed".

You know very little about that set.

Not nearly enough to make absolute claims about it.

Okay, so you do not like my premise, but infinity is still logically possibly using it. I can put practically the same postulate in more specific terms.

1) There have always been quantum fluctuations.

This is not scientifically supported, but it doesn't need to be scientific to be logically possible.

You're merely assuming the thing you say possible. Not demonstrating it.

You have no ideas if there have always been anything.

What you can speak logically about begins at the Big Bang.

This is logic, not science.

Why was the die landing a 6 logically possible even though it was ultimately wrong and therefore impossible? It's because the best we could do was to use a logical assumotion that it had to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.

A common, and I think reasonable, assumption about time is that it either started or it didn't. Before I heard of the Big Bang, and assuming I understood probability, it would have been logical for me to give infinite time a 50-50 chance. Like the die, I had no other information with one choice being impossible.

Even today, I only know enough now to assume a 50-50 that time is eternal. The Big Bang is constantly under scrutiny, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...niverse-NO-beginning-explain-dark-energy.html is just a random example that I found.

 

[untermensche]

There is no logic in making absurd claims about "all moments" you can't back up in any way.

 

[Copernicus]

Congratulations, untermensche! You have succeeded. You have taught me that it is not logically possible to educate you on the subject of logic.

 

[untermensche]

Congratulations, untermensche! You have succeeded. You have taught me that it is not logically possible to educate you on the subject of logic.

This is about your failure not mine.

I have addressed all comments.

None have stood up to scrutiny.

 

[Copernicus]

Congratulations, untermensche! You have succeeded. You have taught me that it is not logically possible to educate you on the subject of logic.

This is about your failure not mine.

I have addressed all comments.

None have stood up to scrutiny.

That is the essence of an ad nauseam fallacy, a reference to which I provided earlier in the discussion.

 

[untermensche]

This is about your failure not mine.

I have addressed all comments.

None have stood up to scrutiny.

That is the essence of an ad nauseam fallacy, a reference to which I provided earlier in the discussion.

I can only work with the available material people provide.

If it is nauseating that is not my fault.

 

[ryan]

That is the essence of an ad nauseam fallacy, a reference to which I provided earlier in the discussion.

I can only work with the available material people provide.

Except that you dodged my last post, a post that I think would have helped you see the argument from my point of view.

 

[untermensche]

I can only work with the available material people provide.

Except that you dodged my last post, a post that I think would have helped you see the argument from my point of view.

I did not dodge it.

It had a gaping problem.

In it you want to make claims about things in which you have no evidence.

You cannot make any rational claims about what has always been.

They are ALL unsupportable.

 

[ryan]

Except that you dodged my last post, a post that I think would have helped you see the argument from my point of view.

I did not dodge it.

It had a gaping problem.

In it you want to make claims about things in which you have no evidence.

This is not about evidence; it's about what the laws/theories of physics allow. We would assume they are true.

When I flip a coin and it lands on heads, the tails was never possible. But before I flipped it, I was rational to assume that tails was possible because I assumed that physics allowed it. So I knew/assumed it would land on either side.

I am at the same point with the question of infinite time as I was with flipping the coin. Assuming one answer is correct and that the laws of physics allow infinite time or finite time, I believe it is rational to assume a similar kind of probability as a coin flip.

 

[Bomb#20]

aleph-null, 2^aleph-null, 2^2aleph-null, ..., and also infinitely many others that are harder to describe. Pretty much any infinite number you'd encounter outside of a math course on transfinites is one of the first few in that list. aleph-null is the number of integers. 2^aleph-null is the number of real numbers. 2^2aleph-null is the number of possible functions of real numbers.

Infinity is not simply a number. It is number plus some other imaginary conception added on, like "without end" or "without beginning".

Trying to find infinity in nature is like trying to find the number "three" in nature. It is not there.

They are both imaginary conceptions that have no real world existence. And there is no reason to think they could have a real world existence.

I.e., every number is number plus some other imaginary conception added on. "Three" is the imaginary conception "two" plus some other imaginary conception added on, like "one". The fact that three is an imaginary conception is evidently no obstacle to the actual existence of a tree branch with three plums hanging from it. So why the heck would the fact that 2^aleph-null is an imaginary conception suddenly be some insurmountable obstacle to the actual existence of a tree branch with 2^aleph-null points between the trunk and the tip?

It's aleph-null. You might as well ask which number 0 is? It's 0.

Not merely numbers. Conceptions on top of the conception of number. Zero is the conception of "without number" or "without value".

If that were the case then "0 degrees Celsius" would be the conception "without temperature". Zero is just the next whole number down from one.

Asking for proof requires showing it is a rational statement.

It requires proving the concept of "limitless" is something possible.

All sorts of things are possible that aren't rational statements. It's possible that my cat is dead; but I saw him ten minutes ago, and he seemed fine, so it would be completely irrational for me to state "My cat is dead.".

You're defining "rational" as expressing the truth.

That is "truthful", not "rational".

Is it rational to express the truth? Not always.

You appear to be mixing up different usages of "rational". Here you're using it to mean something like "an intelligent way to achieve your goal"; so when the Inquisition asks you if you're an atheist it's rational to say "No" even though you are one.

But that can't be what you meant when you said asking for proof requires showing it is a rational statement. When the prosecutor says Andy shot Bob, and the judge asks for proof, she's not going to be satisfied when the prosecutor explains how getting the judge to believe Andy shot Bob will be really good for the prosecutor's career so it's rational for him to make the statement.

So in what sense of "rational" are you claiming that asking for proof requires showing it is a "rational" statement?

Like asking if it is logically possible for something to be real and dimensionless?

Of course that's logically possible.

Then give some logic showing how it is possible.

Not some empty claim about how dimensions are not necessary.

That's a fair question. Here's some logic.

I've written software that simulated the evolution of abstract robots. If my software had been sophisticated enough and someone had run the simulation long enough on a powerful enough computer, in principle the little robots could have evolved intelligence and self-consciousness. If that had happened, they'd have had no way of knowing they were in a simulation. The rules I coded would seem to them simply to be the laws of physics.

By analogy, I infer that for all we know, our universe might likewise be a simulation on a vastly powerful computer. We have no way to tell whether it is or isn't. That's Lemma 1.

We've discovered many mathematical ways to formalize computation, and one of the remarkable things we've observed in the process is that all the different sufficiently powerful models are equivalent to each other. We call full computing power "Turing-equivalence" (simply because the "Turing machine" was historically the first of these full power models to be invented). There are dozens of weaker models, and dozens of Turing-equivalent models, but no stronger models -- nobody has ever been able to come up with any method of computing anything that a Turing machine can't also compute. I infer that if we are a simulation, there is no possible way for us to figure out which kind of computing engine we're running on. That's Lemma 2.

The so-called "counter machine" is Turing-equivalent, and it contains nothing analogous to a dimension -- no Turing-machine-style one dimensional tape, for instance. That's Lemma 3.

So we might be in a universe without dimensions. The appearance that there are dimensions would be an illusion created by software in this scenario, and there's no observational way for us to rule this scenario out.

You clearly say it is logically possible for some event to take place.

If it is logically possible it must be physically possible as well.

It is not logic to say things are possible if they are not physically possible.

You appear to be using the phrase "logically possible" in a nonstandard sense. In your OP, you asked, "What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?". Did you want to learn the answer? Or did you want to just preach at us that in your opinion it's silly of us to use that phrase for the concept most people use it for, and urge us to use the phrase for some different concept that you like better?

The way normal people use the phrase "logically possible", your claim "If it is logically possible it must be physically possible as well." is just wrong. It's the other way around. If something is physically possible then it must be logically possible as well. "Physically possible" is a narrower category than "logically possible". "Physically possible" means "logically possible, and also consistent with the laws of physics". "Logically possible" includes imaginary alternate universes with different physics. So a Star Trek-style warp drive that a starship could use to go faster than light is a typical example of something that's logically possible but isn't physically possible.

If you're going to insist that we have to give a logical reason to think it's plausible that some day humans will be able to build a warp drive before we call it "logically possible", then this whole thread is a debate over wording rather than ideas. If that's what you want, then (a) tell us what term you would prefer we use for the concept of possibility that includes imaginary alternate universes with different physics, and (b) tell us why we should conduct discussions of such matters in untermenschese instead of in English. But if you want to debate ideas instead of wording, then why don't you just conform to the conventions of English? We'll be able to understand one another's arguments better if you do that.

 

[untermensche]

I.e., every number is number plus some other imaginary conception added on. "Three" is the imaginary conception "two" plus some other imaginary conception added on, like "one". The fact that three is an imaginary conception is evidently no obstacle to the actual existence of a tree branch with three plums hanging from it. So why the heck would the fact that 2^aleph-null is an imaginary conception suddenly be some insurmountable obstacle to the actual existence of a tree branch with 2^aleph-null points between the trunk and the tip?

Every number?

What are you adding onto the conception of one?

And the number six is the conception of number plus what else?

There is nothing added to the conception of number to make any number. They are all only numbers.

But infinity is the concept of number plus the concept of "going on forever".

It is more than the conception of number.

f that were the case then "0 degrees Celsius" would be the conception "without temperature". Zero is just the next whole number down from one.

Once you have the symbol of zero you can use it to designate something positive.

You confuse the conception of zero with a use of the symbol to represent a positive temperature. It's a creative use since it highlights the phase change.

If my software had been sophisticated enough and someone had run the simulation long enough on a powerful enough computer, in principle the little robots could have evolved intelligence and self-consciousness.

An empty claim I don't believe for a second. And nothing about the use of computers is "dimensionless".

 

[ryan]

I.e., every number is number plus some other imaginary conception added on. "Three" is the imaginary conception "two" plus some other imaginary conception added on, like "one". The fact that three is an imaginary conception is evidently no obstacle to the actual existence of a tree branch with three plums hanging from it. So why the heck would the fact that 2^aleph-null is an imaginary conception suddenly be some insurmountable obstacle to the actual existence of a tree branch with 2^aleph-null points between the trunk and the tip?

Every number?

What are you adding onto the conception of one?

And the number six is the conception of number plus what else?

There is nothing added to the conception of number to make any number. They are all only numbers.

But infinity is the concept of number plus the concept of "going on forever".

Think of infinity in the context of space as in the example of the tree branches' coordinates, not as time and "going on forever". The branch is not "going on forever" as you put it, it is still finite.

So we either have granular points on a 3 dimensional coordinate space of the tree branch, or we are just going from point to point with no intermediate "jumps". Or in the case of aleph 0, we are jumping past irrational points of measure throughout the branch.

 

[untermensche]

Every number?

What are you adding onto the conception of one?

And the number six is the conception of number plus what else?

There is nothing added to the conception of number to make any number. They are all only numbers.

But infinity is the concept of number plus the concept of "going on forever".

Think of infinity in the context of space as in the example of the tree branches' coordinates, not as time and "going on forever". The branch is not "going on forever" as you put it, it is still finite.

So we either have granular points on a 3 dimensional coordinate space of the tree branch, or we are just going from point to point with no intermediate "jumps". Or in the case of aleph 0, we are jumping past irrational points of measure throughout the branch.

That doesn't make one bit of sense to me.

In mathematics the infinity symbol does not stand for whatever it is you're talking about.

It is the concept of continuation of a series without end.

 

[ryan]

Think of infinity in the context of space as in the example of the tree branches' coordinates, not as time and "going on forever". The branch is not "going on forever" as you put it, it is still finite.

So we either have granular points on a 3 dimensional coordinate space of the tree branch, or we are just going from point to point with no intermediate "jumps". Or in the case of aleph 0, we are jumping past irrational points of measure throughout the branch.

That doesn't make one bit of sense to me.

In mathematics the infinity symbol does not stand for whatever it is you're talking about.

It is the concept of continuation of a series without end.

But we have already been over this so many times. Mathematically, there can be an infinite number of points within a finite segment. It's basic definite integrals of calculus.

 

[untermensche]

That doesn't make one bit of sense to me.

In mathematics the infinity symbol does not stand for whatever it is you're talking about.

It is the concept of continuation of a series without end.

But we have already been over this so many times. Mathematically, there can be an infinite number of points within a finite segment. It's basic definite integrals of calculus.

An infinite number of IMAGINARY points.

Not an infinite number of anything real.

The second you say you have an infinite amount of something real a bunch of cans of worms open up.

First thing is you need infinite space to contain an infinite amount of anything real.

But infinite space is not some amount of space. It is space without end. An imaginary entity that makes no sense.

We cannot talk about a "real infinity" without also embracing a lot of imaginary entities.

It is a waste of time that goes nowhere.

 

[fromderinside]

Sheesh. Emptiness is infinite by definition and molecules are real with material dimensions outside our capability to measure. Remember infinite is as little as n +1 depending on how much one wants to put into counting to n.

Its as if you're stuck inside some second grader's mind

 

[ryan]

But we have already been over this so many times. Mathematically, there can be an infinite number of points within a finite segment. It's basic definite integrals of calculus.

An infinite number of IMAGINARY points.

Not an infinite number of anything real.

The second you say you have an infinite amount of something real a bunch of cans of worms open up.

First thing is you need infinite space to contain an infinite amount of anything real.

But infinite space is not some amount of space. It is space without end. An imaginary entity that makes no sense.

We cannot talk about a "real infinity" without also embracing a lot of imaginary entities.

Here is an example of how infinity would be at least possible without "also embracing a lot of imaginary entities" as you put it.

"In this article we derive the second order Friedmann equations from the QRE, and show that this also contains a couple of quantum correction terms, the first of which can be interpreted as cosmological constant (and gives a correct estimate of its observed value), while the second as a radiation term in the early universe, which gets rid of the big-bang singularity and predicts an infinite age of our universe."

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269314009381

If you are still going with infinity being impossible, you will need to falsify this paper, and many others.

 

[beero1000]

I commend the effort, but it's not like he's going to ever back down. A bird might as well have multiple shortest routes for flying from one place to another.

No, wait...

 

[ryan]

I commend the effort, but it's not like he's going to ever back down. A bird might as well have multiple shortest routes for flying from one place to another.

No, wait...

Unter has a way of making one believe there is still something left to argue. I don't know if I am in an Unter-hypnosis or if there really is any amount of reasonable argument left. I can't imagine there is anything left after my last post, but then again I seem to be thinking that in every post.