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

[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...

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.

It's the blind confidence that makes you think that you might be missing something. Eventually though, it becomes abundantly clear that there's no substance there. Just go back and see how many reasonable and intelligent posters have tried to explain it to him, in so many different ways, only to give up in frustration as he doubles down on his unsupported assertions.

The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.

 

[untermensche]

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...

Back down from what?

You have provided nothing to shoot anything down.

You live in a delusion that infinity is in some way a real concept.

It isn't.

It is purely imaginary.

Thinking purely imaginary concepts can somehow come to life is childish nonsense.

That is why you have stopped even trying to show it could be possible.

What you are doing here is a mystery. You are adding nothing. You have no ability to add anything to this. You are a lost child living in a dream world lashing out against sanity.

 

[untermensche]

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.

You are right, there is nothing left to argue.

Concepts like infinity are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could ever think it might be applied to something real and become an actual possibility.

 

[bilby]

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.

You are right, there is nothing left to argue.

Concepts like infinity are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could ever think it might be applied to something real and become an actual possibility.

Concepts like money are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could think it cannot be applied to something real.

And only someone in the deepest throes of Dunning-Kruger syndrome would argue with a mathematician about infinity, asserting his opinion as unassailable truth despite having bugger all actual expertise in the field.

You appear to know just enough about the subject to make an abject fool of yourself; In the unlikely event that you decide to stop declaring the perfection of your present understanding, and actually learn about this stuff, then one day you will look back on this discussion with cringing embarrassment at the total arse you are making of yourself.

 

[untermensche]

You are right, there is nothing left to argue.

Concepts like infinity are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could ever think it might be applied to something real and become an actual possibility.

Concepts like money are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could think it cannot be applied to something real.

And only someone in the deepest throes of Dunning-Kruger syndrome would argue with a mathematician about infinity, asserting his opinion as unassailable truth despite having bugger all actual expertise in the field.

You appear to know just enough about the subject to make an abject fool of yourself; In the unlikely event that you decide to stop declaring the perfection of your present understanding, and actually learn about this stuff, then one day you will look back on this discussion with cringing embarrassment at the total arse you are making of yourself.

Nobody thinks the concept of money is PURELY imaginary.

Nobody.

If you think that, please send me all your money since it is nothing but an imaginary concept.

Strawmen are a waste of time.

 

[ryan]

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.

You are right, there is nothing left to argue.

Concepts like infinity are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could ever think it might be applied to something real and become an actual possibility.

So the theoretical physicists from the paper are delusional children?

From my point of view, there is a person with admittedly far less education on the subject claiming one thing, and theoretical physicists with peers claiming the opposite.

Unless you can explain why the new theoretical model I posted must not be true in allowing the possibility of infinity, I have no choice but to think there is something disingenuous going on here.

 

[untermensche]

You are right, there is nothing left to argue.

Concepts like infinity are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could ever think it might be applied to something real and become an actual possibility.

So the theoretical physicists from the paper are delusional children?

From my point of view, there is a person with admittedly far less education on the subject claiming one thing, and theoretical physicists with peers claiming the opposite.

Unless you can explain why the new theoretical model I posted must not be true in allowing the possibility of infinity, I have no choice but to think there is something disingenuous going on here.

None are saying they believe infinity is something real.

These papers are speculations, not findings that infinity is somehow real.

Show me the paper showing infinity is in any way real.

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

Irrationality is our natural state. Rationality takes work.

 

[ryan]

So the theoretical physicists from the paper are delusional children?

From my point of view, there is a person with admittedly far less education on the subject claiming one thing, and theoretical physicists with peers claiming the opposite.

Unless you can explain why the new theoretical model I posted must not be true in allowing the possibility of infinity, I have no choice but to think there is something disingenuous going on here.

None are saying they believe infinity is something real.

These papers are speculations, not findings that infinity is somehow real.

Show me the paper showing infinity is in any way real.

My argument has never been about it necessarily being real.

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

I still don't understand this. Where do you get the idea that all imaginary mathematical models of the universe must be impossible before they are realized?

 

[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...

Back down from what?

You have provided nothing to shoot anything down.

You live in a delusion that infinity is in some way a real concept.

It isn't.

It is purely imaginary.

Thinking purely imaginary concepts can somehow come to life is childish nonsense.

That is why you have stopped even trying to show it could be possible.

What you are doing here is a mystery. You are adding nothing. You have no ability to add anything to this. You are a lost child living in a dream world lashing out against sanity.

It's easy to win arguments against opponents that only exist in your head, isn't it? When you get to change definitions and swap goalposts and do everything possible to avoid admitting your mistakes.

Unfortunately for you, we don't exist solely in your imagination and are thus unconstrained by your particular inadequacies. Also, I've reminded you of this before, but I'll say it again - there is a record on this website of every post, every argument and counter. Anyone who wants to can go back and see who said what and when. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

Speaking of which, do you still believe that a bird having multiple shortest flight paths between two points on Earth is absurd?

 

[beero1000]

None are saying they believe infinity is something real.

These papers are speculations, not findings that infinity is somehow real.

Show me the paper showing infinity is in any way real.

My argument has never been about it necessarily being real.

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

I still don't understand this. Where do you get the idea that all imaginary mathematical models of the universe must be impossible before they are realized?

It's pretty clearly the only way he can justify his being right anymore. If you go back to previous posts, he had claimed that infinite time/space/etc were literally impossible. Apparently some light bulb went off (at least subconsciously) and his argument has shifted accordingly. He'd never admit it though...

 

[untermensche]

None are saying they believe infinity is something real.

These papers are speculations, not findings that infinity is somehow real.

Show me the paper showing infinity is in any way real.

My argument has never been about it necessarily being real.

Then how do you think you can logically apply it to something real?

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

I still don't understand this. Where do you get the idea that all imaginary mathematical models of the universe must be impossible before they are realized?

I don't understand what you are saying no less have that idea.

I believe the concept of infinity is purely an imaginary concept.

And I believe it is irrational to try to apply imaginary concepts to the real world. It is irrational to claim infinity could actually exist.

I don't care who does it.

If they are doing it they are behaving irrationally.

You saying that some people are doing it is not an argument in any way showing it is rational to do it.

You need to give me a reason besides the fact that some people may be doing something to believe it is a rational thing to do.

Why do you think it is rational to apply an imaginary concept to the universe? What gives you that right?

 

[bilby]

Concepts like money are imaginary fictions.

Only a child could think it cannot be applied to something real.

And only someone in the deepest throes of Dunning-Kruger syndrome would argue with a mathematician about infinity, asserting his opinion as unassailable truth despite having bugger all actual expertise in the field.

You appear to know just enough about the subject to make an abject fool of yourself; In the unlikely event that you decide to stop declaring the perfection of your present understanding, and actually learn about this stuff, then one day you will look back on this discussion with cringing embarrassment at the total arse you are making of yourself.

Nobody thinks the concept of money is PURELY imaginary.

Nobody.

If you think that, please send me all your money since it is nothing but an imaginary concept.

Strawmen are a waste of time.

Nobody? I am sure that some people do. And, just like people who think infinities are PURELY imaginary, those people are wrong.

As you say, strawmen are a waste of time; It makes me wonder why you presented one. I presume it is just further evidence of your incompetence to have this discussion.

 

[untermensche]

Back down from what?

You have provided nothing to shoot anything down.

You live in a delusion that infinity is in some way a real concept.

It isn't.

It is purely imaginary.

Thinking purely imaginary concepts can somehow come to life is childish nonsense.

That is why you have stopped even trying to show it could be possible.

What you are doing here is a mystery. You are adding nothing. You have no ability to add anything to this. You are a lost child living in a dream world lashing out against sanity.

It's easy to win arguments against opponents that only exist in your head, isn't it? When you get to change definitions and swap goalposts and do everything possible to avoid admitting your mistakes.

You are no opponent of mine.

You offer me no exercise.

You are merely persistent in your bad arguments.

Unfortunately for you, we don't exist solely in your imagination and are thus unconstrained by your particular inadequacies. Also, I've reminded you of this before, but I'll say it again - there is a record on this website of every post, every argument and counter. Anyone who wants to can go back and see who said what and when. You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.

I see no argument about anything here?

What are you doing here?

You have nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Speaking of which, do you still believe that a bird having multiple shortest flight paths between two points on Earth is absurd?

This is a stupid dodge which proves you have nothing to say about the subject at hand.

You know, proving something logically possible.

Like trying to prove purely imaginary concepts are logically possible.

I can understand why you want to dodge this completely.

 

[bilby]

So the theoretical physicists from the paper are delusional children?

From my point of view, there is a person with admittedly far less education on the subject claiming one thing, and theoretical physicists with peers claiming the opposite.

Unless you can explain why the new theoretical model I posted must not be true in allowing the possibility of infinity, I have no choice but to think there is something disingenuous going on here.

None are saying they believe infinity is something real.

These papers are speculations, not findings that infinity is somehow real.

Show me the paper showing infinity is in any way real.

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

Irrationality is our natural state. Rationality takes work.

And you are clearly disinclined to do that work, so why continue to make a fool of yourself in public?

 

[untermensche]

Nobody thinks the concept of money is PURELY imaginary.

Nobody.

If you think that, please send me all your money since it is nothing but an imaginary concept.

Strawmen are a waste of time.

Nobody? I am sure that some people do. And, just like people who think infinities are PURELY imaginary, those people are wrong.

As you say, strawmen are a waste of time; It makes me wonder why you presented one. I presume it is just further evidence of your incompetence to have this discussion.

Go ahead.

Show me how infinity is not purely imaginary.

Show that to me. Show me where we find a real infinity and not merely one in your imagination.

I can show you money.

Please for once, prove something instead of merely claiming it.

- - - Updated - - -

None are saying they believe infinity is something real.

These papers are speculations, not findings that infinity is somehow real.

Show me the paper showing infinity is in any way real.

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

Irrationality is our natural state. Rationality takes work.

And you are clearly disinclined to do that work, so why continue to make a fool of yourself in public?

This is about as lazy a response as possible.

Evidence of a lazy mind.

I understand the cause of your ignorance.

 

[beero1000]

Speaking of which, do you still believe that a bird having multiple shortest flight paths between two points on Earth is absurd?

This is a stupid dodge which proves you have nothing to say about the subject at hand.

You know, proving something logically possible.

Like trying to prove purely imaginary concepts are logically possible.

I can understand why you want to dodge this completely.

You brought it up, unsolicited, in this very thread. It was a bit of a non sequitur anyway, but it's something everyone can picture and is easily proved, unlike abstract concepts like infinity and the shape of the universe, so I'm using it as a gauge to see if any progress can be made. Can you admit that you made a mistake and that your statement was wrong?

 

[ryan]

My argument has never been about it necessarily being real.

That you believe something that is purely imaginary could be possible just shows you are irrational.

I still don't understand this. Where do you get the idea that all imaginary mathematical models of the universe must be impossible before they are realized?

It's pretty clearly the only way he can justify his being right anymore. If you go back to previous posts, he had claimed that infinite time/space/etc were literally impossible. Apparently some light bulb went off (at least subconsciously) and his argument has shifted accordingly. He'd never admit it though...

I think Unter is still throwing the impossible claim out there.

 

[bilby]

Nobody? I am sure that some people do. And, just like people who think infinities are PURELY imaginary, those people are wrong.

As you say, strawmen are a waste of time; It makes me wonder why you presented one. I presume it is just further evidence of your incompetence to have this discussion.

Go ahead.

Show me how infinity is not purely imaginary.

Show that to me. Show me where we find a real infinity and not merely one in your imagination.

I can show you money.

Please for once, prove something instead of merely claiming it.

You can show me banknotes or coins that some people use to help keep track of money; But you can't show me money. Money is purely conceptual. Like infinity. And both are very useful.

 

[untermensche]

Go ahead.

Show me how infinity is not purely imaginary.

Show that to me. Show me where we find a real infinity and not merely one in your imagination.

I can show you money.

Please for once, prove something instead of merely claiming it.

You can show me banknotes or coins that some people use to help keep track of money; But you can't show me money. Money is purely conceptual. Like infinity. And both are very useful.

If you think money is PURELY imaginary then send me all your money.

It shouldn't matter since it is all PURELY imaginary.

The value we attach to bills and coins is not imaginary.

To claim money is PURELY imaginary is an incredibly bad argument.

Because it is not true.

You cannot show me one real infinity or demonstrate that any real thing is somehow infinite.

To think infinity is in any way real is extreme irrationality.

 

[fast]

Go ahead.

Show me how infinity is not purely imaginary.

Show that to me. Show me where we find a real infinity and not merely one in your imagination.

I can show you money.

Please for once, prove something instead of merely claiming it.

I noticed this from a couple pages back. In particular, I'm speaking exclusively about the bolded portion. I posted a little bit of what appeared before and after -- for context. There's a few things going on that I think deserve highlighting.

The first thing that jumps out is the peculiarity of saying, "a real infinity." However, the term, "real" is just a distraction to seeing the peculiarity. For instance, had you said, "an infinity", the issue I have remains. It's the use of "show" along with that [and you are requesting "show you an infinity," are you not?] which causes me to shake my head, as it strikes me hard--as a category error. Infinity is not the kind of thing that can be shown (which you likely agree to but for the wrong reason). It would be like saying show me the referent of the numeral three. It's not the kind of concrete thing -- that can be shown, but not because of nonexistence. They have properties and therefore do exist.

The second thing to highlight and to further the previous point, your saying, "where" is just as problematic, as if your point is to say it's false that something exists unless it exists somewhere. Infinity doesn't exist somewhere, just as the number three doesn't exist somewhere, but it does exist, and we should know this because they both have properties. They can't be shown as concrete things could, but then again they're not concrete things, so requests for them to be shown as if they were is unreasonable. Infinity is real, just as real as the number three, and by real, I mean not imaginary. If it exists, which it does, then it's real (in that sense--so please let us not confuse "real vs imaginary" with "real vs. fake.") There's enough of confusion already.

The third thing (and to further my previous point) is your convoluted idea of "imaginary." There are not two classes of things: that which is real and that which is imaginary. Yet, you speak as if there are those groupings. To say of something that it's imaginary (by the well versed) isn't the assertion that there is in fact something which in turn isn't real. No no no. To say of something that it's imaginary is quite different. It's a denial that something is real. The denial doesn't magically pop it into existence and belonging to the group of all imaginary things in existence. They don't exist!