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

[beero1000]

Betcha didn't even bother reading the link before reiterating your blind assertions. Y'know, the one from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, written and maintained by experts in the field? I guess we are all just supposed to just fall in line and agree with the poorly thought out "arguments" from unter-"everything I don't understand is fake, and that's a lot"-mensche, or he'll *gasp* accuse us of being religious...

 

[untermensche]

The link? More like the missing link.

Appeals to your scriptures is not what I'm looking for.

Telling me you and some other people believe it is not what I'm looking for.

I'm looking for somebody to explain why we need this category "logical possibility" if it has nothing to do with what might actually be possible?

In terms of possibilities in this existence "physical possibilities" covers everything that could possibly happen.

So-called "logical possibilities" may not even be possible.

Where is the logic in that?

 

[beero1000]

As far as anyone else can tell, it's understanding that isn't what you're looking for.

Or you could, y'know, read. Improve your mind and actually learn something. Stop just repeating the same tired old refuted assertions and actual pay attention to what people are telling you is wrong about your claims. Use formal definitions instead of ambiguous ones, and carefully construct your arguments using actual logic instead of asking bad rhetorical questions.

Ignorance is easy, you have to work at knowledge. Call that religion if you want, it can just be another one of your alternative definitions of common words.

 

[untermensche]

This is from the website you mentioned but did not link.

Even though the cup is on the left side of the table, it could have been on the right side.

This is a statement about what could have been possible in the past.

How do we know it could have been possible?

Because cups can move around.

This possibility was not derived by any logical argument.

It is derived by mere facts about the world and facts about cups.

Saying something could be infinite is nothing like the statement above.

It is a claim that has no real world example. Nobody can point to anything and say they know for certain it is infinite.

It is not a logical possibility.

It is an empty claim that has no support at all.

 

[untermensche]

As far as anyone else can tell, it's understanding that isn't what you're looking for.

Or you could, y'know, read. Improve your mind and actually learn something. Stop just repeating the same tired old refuted assertions and actual pay attention to what people are telling you is wrong about your claims. Use formal definitions instead of ambiguous ones, and carefully construct your arguments using actual logic instead of asking bad rhetorical questions.

Ignorance is easy, you have to work at knowledge. Call that religion if you want, it can just be another one of your alternative definitions of common words.

I see claims that anything besides physical possibilities exist as totally irrational.

They don't give us anything.

They don't prove anything.

Maybe they pays the bills for the people who merely teach others about things that have no use?

 

[beero1000]

As far as anyone else can tell, it's understanding that isn't what you're looking for.

Or you could, y'know, read. Improve your mind and actually learn something. Stop just repeating the same tired old refuted assertions and actual pay attention to what people are telling you is wrong about your claims. Use formal definitions instead of ambiguous ones, and carefully construct your arguments using actual logic instead of asking bad rhetorical questions.

Ignorance is easy, you have to work at knowledge. Call that religion if you want, it can just be another one of your alternative definitions of common words.

I see claims that anything besides physical possibilities exist as totally irrational.

They don't give us anything.

They don't prove anything.

Maybe they pays the bills for the people who merely teach others about things that have no use?

Oooh, conspiracy theory. I guess you'll never know unless you make the effort to learn.

 

[untermensche]

Is the Catholic church a conspiracy theory?

Or just a lot of people with some shared delusions?

 

[beero1000]

This is from the website you mentioned but did not link.

Even though the cup is on the left side of the table, it could have been on the right side.

This is a statement about what could have been possible in the past.

How do we know it could have been possible?

Because cups can move around.

This possibility was not derived by any logical argument.

It is derived by mere facts about the world and facts about cups.

Saying something could be infinite is nothing like the statement above.

It is a claim that has no real world example. Nobody can point to anything and say they know for certain it is infinite.

It is not a logical possibility.

It is an empty claim that has no support at all.

The URL is in my post. Now we're arguing over what the word "linked" means?

You need to actually read, instead of looking for a quick 'gotcha'. The next sentence (literally) introduces a new concept in contrast to those ordinary modal judgments.

Lame.

 

[untermensche]

With such rebuttals why do I say nobody has convinced me of anything?

You are peddling your religion.

It disturbs me.

 

[fast]

Where is the line between physically possible and physically impossible? Someone, somewhere, in this thread said something that I thought explained it well. There seems to be two different notions, and I'm not sure which to go with.

I doubt that it will help quell our current dilemma, but it's related. Is something that we cannot now do a physical impossibility merely because we cannot now do it? For instance, running the mile in 4 minutes couldn't physically be done until later it was done. Also, we cannot physically walk on a battleship on the far side of the moon. A 200 year old person can't walk the perimeter of a local Walmart.

 

[untermensche]

Where is the line between physically possible and physically impossible.

The nature of the universe defines the line not any human definitions or understanding. Certainly not a bunch of statements.

But the nature of the universe is for change to occur it must have a beginning.

Without a beginning to a change there is no change.

To say there is any change without a beginning to it is on it's face absurd. If there is no beginning to a change there is no change.

Try it.

Test it out for something like a change of location.

Put your cup on the table. Now move the cup without beginning the movement.

 

[Juma]

Aren't space and time each "piece-wise continuous", at least in our ordinary conception of them?

These concepts are not defined on space and time.
We dont know how thet behave at planck scale and smaller.
Only how they behave on bigger scales.

 

[fast]

Where is the line between physically possible and physically impossible.

The nature of the universe defines the line not any human definitions or understanding. Certainly not a bunch of statements.

But the nature of the universe is for change to occur it must have a beginning.

Without a beginning to a change there is no change.

To say there is any change without a beginning to it is on it's face absurd. If there is no beginning to a change there is no change.

Try it.

Test it out for something like a change of location.

Put your cup on the table. Now move the cup without beginning the movement.

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say. If I take a snapshot of the universe at time stamp 'x' then again at time stamp 'Z', then the sum of the individual interim events all had a beginning. Necessarily, mmm, not so sure; contingently, yes.

 

[Juma]

No. You have stopped thinking. You have stopped analyzing your own reasons.
Sad.

It is simple minded and stupid to claim that infinite events occurred in the past.

If an event doesn't start there can be no event.

Time is not an event.

 

[Juma]

The nature of the universe defines the line not any human definitions or understanding. Certainly not a bunch of statements.

But the nature of the universe is for change to occur it must have a beginning.

Without a beginning to a change there is no change.

To say there is any change without a beginning to it is on it's face absurd. If there is no beginning to a change there is no change.

Try it.

Test it out for something like a change of location.

Put your cup on the table. Now move the cup without beginning the movement.

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say. If I take a snapshot of the universe at time stamp 'x' then again at time stamp 'Z', then the sum of the individual interim events all had a beginning. Necessarily, mmm, not so sure; contingently, yes.

What the fuck is ”the sum of the individual interim events”? And how is thesum a plural? ”All”? Are you referring to that each of the events has a beginning? Or that there one of the events was earlier than the others and therny marks the beginning of the entire set of events in that time interval?

In either case: what was your point man?

Dont let U drag you down...

 

[fast]

I'm not disagreeing with everything you say. If I take a snapshot of the universe at time stamp 'x' then again at time stamp 'Z', then the sum of the individual interim events all had a beginning. Necessarily, mmm, not so sure; contingently, yes.

What the fuck is ”the sum of the individual interim events”? And how is thesum a plural? ”All”? Are you referring to that each of the events has a beginning? Or that there one of the events was earlier than the others and therny marks the beginning of the entire set of events in that time interval?

In either case: what was your point man?

Dont let U drag you down...

In your previous post, you said, "time is not an event." I agree with that. I believe you're absolutely correct about that. I do think events take time though. In other words, events are not instantaneous. Some events can appear to happen in an instant, and it's okay to talk amongst certain groups of people that they are, especially when the subject matter is merely to contrast how long varying events pass, but in our context, where utmost accuracy is most helpful, time should be taken as a necessary condition for events. No time entails no events.

You ask about the sum of interim events. As I sit where I sit and gaze out upon the tiny portion of the universe I can observe, there's a lot going on. Events are occurring. Birds are flapping wings. Stars are in motion. Car doors are slamming. People are talking. I hear a buggy being pushed across a parking lot. Within my own body, events are occurring...heart is beating, blood is flowing, neurons are firing. Events all around me, and plentiful they are.

Even beyond my own observational advantage, all over town, and even all over the world, and yes, dare I say all throughout the cosmos, quintillions upon sextillions of events (and surely even more) are occurring, and each of them, all of them take time to occur.

Now, let's say I recorded them all for a five minute duration. Consider them in any fashion you choose. Individually, or collectively, they each take time to complete. There's a duration to events. The bird that flew overhead passed the 6th light pole and then the 7th, and that event (the bird flying from past the sixth to flying past the 7th) took time. It began at the sixth, but like pause on a VCR, had time stopped, so too would the event have frozen in time.

My point, however, had nothing to do with that. I question the notion he probably isn't even aware that he expresses when he uses the word, "must."

Either time has always been OR time began, and if it's so that time began, how is it so that it done so necessarily? It's true that an apple will fall if dropped, but it's a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The laws of nature are what they are, but they are as they are contingently, not necessarily.

Events have a beginning, but they are contingent, not necessitated.

Oh, and worry not, I'll stay afloat ... at least I'll try

 

[Juma]

What the fuck is ”the sum of the individual interim events”? And how is thesum a plural? ”All”? Are you referring to that each of the events has a beginning? Or that there one of the events was earlier than the others and therny marks the beginning of the entire set of events in that time interval?

In either case: what was your point man?

Dont let U drag you down...

In your previous post, you said, "time is not an event." I agree with that. I believe you're absolutely correct about that. I do think events take time though. In other words, events are not instantaneous. Some events can appear to happen in an instant, and it's okay to talk amongst certain groups of people that they are, especially when the subject matter is merely to contrast how long varying events pass, but in our context, where utmost accuracy is most helpful, time should be taken as a necessary condition for events. No time entails no events.

You ask about the sum of interim events. As I sit where I sit and gaze out upon the tiny portion of the universe I can observe, there's a lot going on. Events are occurring. Birds are flapping wings. Stars are in motion. Car doors are slamming. People are talking. I hear a buggy being pushed across a parking lot. Within my own body, events are occurring...heart is beating, blood is flowing, neurons are firing. Events all around me, and plentiful they are.

Even beyond my own observational advantage, all over town, and even all over the world, and yes, dare I say all throughout the cosmos, quintillions upon sextillions of events (and surely even more) are occurring, and each of them, all of them take time to occur.

Now, let's say I recorded them all for a five minute duration. Consider them in any fashion you choose. Individually, or collectively, they each take time to complete. There's a duration to events. The bird that flew overhead passed the 6th light pole and then the 7th, and that event (the bird flying from past the sixth to flying past the 7th) took time. It began at the sixth, but like pause on a VCR, had time stopped, so too would the event have frozen in time.

My point, however, had nothing to do with that. I question the notion he probably isn't even aware that he expresses when he uses the word, "must."

Either time has always been OR time began, and if it's so that time began, how is it so that it done so necessarily? It's true that an apple will fall if dropped, but it's a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The laws of nature are what they are, but they are as they are contingently, not necessarily.

Events have a beginning, but they are contingent, not necessitated.

Oh, and worry not, I'll stay afloat ... at least I'll try

You realize that events is just labesl you put on the world? Events doesnt exist until you define them, they are totally arbitrary. Somewhat like objects. Thus the sum of events would depend on the mental capacity of the observer..

 

[fast]

In your previous post, you said, "time is not an event." I agree with that. I believe you're absolutely correct about that. I do think events take time though. In other words, events are not instantaneous. Some events can appear to happen in an instant, and it's okay to talk amongst certain groups of people that they are, especially when the subject matter is merely to contrast how long varying events pass, but in our context, where utmost accuracy is most helpful, time should be taken as a necessary condition for events. No time entails no events.

You ask about the sum of interim events. As I sit where I sit and gaze out upon the tiny portion of the universe I can observe, there's a lot going on. Events are occurring. Birds are flapping wings. Stars are in motion. Car doors are slamming. People are talking. I hear a buggy being pushed across a parking lot. Within my own body, events are occurring...heart is beating, blood is flowing, neurons are firing. Events all around me, and plentiful they are.

Even beyond my own observational advantage, all over town, and even all over the world, and yes, dare I say all throughout the cosmos, quintillions upon sextillions of events (and surely even more) are occurring, and each of them, all of them take time to occur.

Now, let's say I recorded them all for a five minute duration. Consider them in any fashion you choose. Individually, or collectively, they each take time to complete. There's a duration to events. The bird that flew overhead passed the 6th light pole and then the 7th, and that event (the bird flying from past the sixth to flying past the 7th) took time. It began at the sixth, but like pause on a VCR, had time stopped, so too would the event have frozen in time.

My point, however, had nothing to do with that. I question the notion he probably isn't even aware that he expresses when he uses the word, "must."

Either time has always been OR time began, and if it's so that time began, how is it so that it done so necessarily? It's true that an apple will fall if dropped, but it's a contingent truth, not a necessary truth. The laws of nature are what they are, but they are as they are contingently, not necessarily.

Events have a beginning, but they are contingent, not necessitated.

Oh, and worry not, I'll stay afloat ... at least I'll try

You realize that events is just labesl you put on the world? Events doesnt exist until you define them, they are totally arbitrary. Somewhat like objects. Thus the sum of events would depend on the mental capacity of the observer..

There are objects, and objects exist independent of us. Objects move, and an object that moves can do so independent of us. Objects that move are events. Many events are independent of us.

You mention events as labels. I'll come back to that, but first, I suppose you also think objects are also just labels. They are not. There is an object high up beyond the skies in space we call the moon. If there was no us, there would be no name (at least not from us) of the object, but like I said earlier, the object is independent of us.

That object that has a name (that also would exist without a name) moves. It orbits the Earth, and though the event is called by a name, it would still move independent of the name given to it by us.

 

[George S]

Yes, event is a noun.

event, n. 2a) something that happened: occurrence <snippage> 4) the fundamental entity of observed physical reality represented by a point designated by three coordinates of place and one of time in the space-time continuum postulated by the theory of relativity -- Merriam-Webster

In physics: (x,y,z,t), a point with a time, not something that takes time. In non-technical discussions an event has a duration.

A colloquial event has two physics events as its starting and end points.

___________________
In any event, time is a dimension. There are 3 space dimensions. We measure a distance along a space axis and we measure duration along a time axis. The tick marks on this axis are established by naturally cyclic repetitions.

Each of these 4 dimensions, in a flat Euclidean space, is defined to be infinite. The question is whether or not there is something going on at various durations in the time axis. For something to be "going on" requires change -- a difference in spatial configuration at two different physics events establishing a very small duration with the same (x,y,z) coordinates. No difference, nothing happened.

Are there happenings somewhere at all points along the time dimension? If so reality is infinite.
Is there a t coordinate such that there is nothing happening anywhere before that time? If so reality in that direction is not infinite.
Will there be a t-coordinate such that there is nothing happening anywhere after that time? If so reality in that direction is not infinite.

 

[Juma]

You realize that events is just labesl you put on the world? Events doesnt exist until you define them, they are totally arbitrary. Somewhat like objects. Thus the sum of events would depend on the mental capacity of the observer..

There are objects, and objects exist independent of us. Objects move, and an object that moves can do so independent of us. Objects that move are events. Many events are independent of us.

You mention events as labels. I'll come back to that, but first, I suppose you also think objects are also just labels. They are not. There is an object high up beyond the skies in space we call the moon. If there was no us, there would be no name (at least not from us) of the object, but like I said earlier, the object is independent of us.

That object that has a name (that also would exist without a name) moves. It orbits the Earth, and though the event is called by a name, it would still move independent of the name given to it by us.

The example of the moon fools you because it seems so clear cut. But we speak of lot of things as objects which are just more or less arbitrarily demarcations of what we see as features. Waves, curve of the road etc. you see: i dont say that the features which we modrl as objects doesnt exist, but the modelling of the world into objects is a feature of the human mind.
It is a very useful and reasonabel model, but a model none the less.

The same goes with events.

Thus investigating the generic properties of objects and events will be an investigation of the human mind. Not of realities of the world surrounding us.