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

[fast]

"Planet" is a category. Not a specific entity.

An arbitrary, artificial, man-made category.

Not arbitrary. We looked up and saw similarities in nature, similarities that were there before we looked. They were there for the discovery. We later invented a word (and maybe that was arbitrary), but it refers to an aspect of nature, just like the older definition "planet" referred to an aspect of nature.

We created the name for the categories. Category potentials are endless. They exist independent of human creation.

 

[untermensche]

The very idea of category is arbitrary and man-made.

Without humans no categories exist.

 

[George S]

The very idea of category is arbitrary and man-made.

Without humans no categories exist.

You are quite entertaining, really.

The word category is man-made. In Latin the word is genus.

We humans can categorize by genus quite easily. That is a cat, wolf, sheep, tiger, whale, and so on. It is a basic part of dealing with the environment. We have a word to describe this level of distinction: category.

Nature has categories. So we have a word for them.

Nature has possibilities so we have a word for them, too.

There is a man-made system of symbolic logic in which logical possibility, a two word term exists as the negative of logical impossibility. A logical impossibility is, by definition, a string of symbolic logic symbols which can be reduced to (A & ~A) (for some A) using the rules of symbolic logic.

 

[untermensche]

Nature has no categories.

Only humans have categories.

And all are arbitrary.

We humans can categorize by genus quite easily.

Genus is a totally arbitrary category.

With biological organisms there is nearness of relationship and nothing else. There are no categories.

 

[Juma]

The very idea of category is arbitrary and man-made.

Without humans no categories exist.

You are quite entertaining, really.

The word category is man-made. In Latin the word is genus.

We humans can categorize by genus quite easily. That is a cat, wolf, sheep, tiger, whale, and so on. It is a basic part of dealing with the environment. We have a word to describe this level of distinction: category.

Nature has categories. So we have a word for them.

Nature has possibilities so we have a word for them, too.

There is a man-made system of symbolic logic in which logical possibility, a two word term exists as the negative of logical impossibility. A logical impossibility is, by definition, a string of symbolic logic symbols which can be reduced to (A & ~A) (for some A) using the rules of symbolic logic.

In this I agree with untermensche.

You can categorize nature, but there are no categories in nature.
You can compare stuff in nature but there are no comaparison in nature (except you doing it)
You can draw limits berween different features in nature but there are no such borders in nature.
You refer to features as objects but there are no objects in nature.

(Nature = the reality we observe)

 

[DBT]

Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

 

[untermensche]

Categories assigned by humans are not arbitrary. They are based on the observable features and characteristics of objects and events within the world at large.

To categorize is a mental activity.

It is not something that occurs without a mind.

It first requires something that can recognize similarity.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The very idea of category is arbitrary and man-made.

Without humans no categories exist.

You are quite entertaining, really.

The word category is man-made. In Latin the word is genus.

We humans can categorize by genus quite easily. That is a cat, wolf, sheep, tiger, whale, and so on. It is a basic part of dealing with the environment. We have a word to describe this level of distinction: category.

Nature has categories. So we have a word for them.

Nature has possibilities so we have a word for them, too.

There is a man-made system of symbolic logic in which logical possibility, a two word term exists as the negative of logical impossibility. A logical impossibility is, by definition, a string of symbolic logic symbols which can be reduced to (A & ~A) (for some A) using the rules of symbolic logic.

In this I agree with untermensche.

You can categorize nature, but there are no categories in nature.
You can compare stuff in nature but there are no comaparison in nature (except you doing it)
You can draw limits berween different features in nature but there are no such borders in nature.
You refer to features as objects but there are no objects in nature.

Yeah, exactly.

I, too, agree with UM!


Still, it should be said that the issue is your typical metaphysical project. We can't prove anything in this respect. All we can do is believe this way or that way. It's a matter of what your broad view of reality is.

(Nature = the reality we observe)

Er, no. Wrong. Completely wrong.

This even contradicts the point you just made. If nature was 'the reality we observe', it would of course include categories and objects.


We certainly infer what nature must be from what we observe. And, we will assume that we are indeed observing nature itself. But by nature we definitely mean something which must exist in itself, irrespective of whatever we may think we observe of it.

So, in effect, we can believe that categories and objects do exist as such in nature itself or that, no, they don't exist in nature and are merely an artifact of the fact that we are human beings observing nature.

You could say that scientific discovery have shown our categories and objects to be illusory but, although that's true, we still have this idea that there has to be something fundamental, or that nature can only be made of some fundamental things, which sounds furiously like reintroducing categories and objects to me, although ones which would be entirely 'natural', like quark and energy or whatever.

Who would formulate a scientific view of the world without any apparent categorisation and objectification would deserve a Nobel in my view. But I can't even conceive how that could come about.

I think we'll have to ask God to help here.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Still, it should be said that the issue is your typical metaphysical project. We can't prove anything in this respect. All we can do is believe this way or that way. It's a matter of what your broad view of reality is...

The issue is how does a category exist without something to create the category?

It is not possible a category can exist without something else existing that can possibly create one.

Because they are all created arbitrariness. A focus on this arbitrary feature and an ignoring of that.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Still, it should be said that the issue is your typical metaphysical project. We can't prove anything in this respect. All we can do is believe this way or that way. It's a matter of what your broad view of reality is...

The issue is how does a category exist without something to create the category?

It is not possible a category can exist without something else existing that can possibly create one.

No, but this is a common error you're making here.

The error is to start from what (you think) you know and assume that the laws that seem to apply to what you know must somehow apply to what you still don't know. Sorry, but discovery doesn't work like this. Discovery is empirical, not a priori. Sure, we can use what we think we know to try and help us in the discovery process to find out what we don't know but that's still empirical because it's a pragmatic strategy to discover things, not any a priori judgement as to what reality is necessarily like. Science tells us how to do it. You just have to discover whether the laws you think apply really apply.

So, who said something cannot exist without having been created?

How could you possibly know that something cannot exist without having been created? Were you there at the creation of everything?

There's no a priori law, rule, abstract constraint that we could apply to explain the ontology of reality. Reality is just what it is. We can't even assume either it was somehow created or not.
EB

 

[untermensche]

A category is an abstract human creation.

It is an arbitrary process of assigning "value" to arbitrary features.

It is something that can not possibly exist in the absence of a mind.

If you disagree prove a category can exist without a mind to create it.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A category is an abstract human creation.

It is an arbitrary process of assigning "value" to arbitrary features.

It is something that can not possibly exist in the absence of a mind.

How you could possibly know that is beyond me. You're just making a metaphysical claim.

If you disagree prove a category can exist without a mind to create it.

Yeah, I disagree with the suggestion in your statement here that there's obviously no other possibility.

There is nothing obvious here. Personally, I can't exclude either possibility.

Maybe there are fundamental particles and maybe there are different fundamental categories of fundamental particles. Who knows?

Now, if you think you can exclude the possibility that there are any fundamental categories or objects which would exist independently of what humans think, then it's up to you to provide a proof for your claim.

And if you can't do that, then you should refrain from making claims as if you knew they were necessarily true.

You may believe what you like but trying to pass off your beliefs as obvious truths is not good.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Come on.

Give me a category that isn't an arbitrary human grouping with an emphasis on arbitrary features.

You only need one.

Hint: You won't find one.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Come on.

Give me a category that isn't an arbitrary human grouping with an emphasis on arbitrary features.

You only need one.

Hint: You won't find one.

That's all you can do?!
EB

 

[untermensche]

?

You haven't done anything.

How does a category magically appear?

They are something humans devise.

 

[Speakpigeon]

?

You haven't done anything.

How does a category magically appear?

They are something humans devise.

I already replied to that.

This seems to show you really don't understand what I say.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

 

[beero1000]

?

You haven't done anything.

How does a category magically appear?

They are something humans devise.

I already replied to that.

This seems to show you really don't understand what I say.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

Eh, all by himself, and without any human intervention, my dog seems to have defined at least two categories of things: "food" and "not food". There seems to be some mismatch between our category definitions...

 

[untermensche]

I already replied to that.

This seems to show you really don't understand what I say.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

Eh, all by himself, and without any human intervention, my dog seems to have defined at least two categories of things: "food" and "not food". There seems to be some mismatch between our category definitions...

Does your dog have a mind?

That is what I said was necessary.

 

[untermensche]

?

You haven't done anything.

How does a category magically appear?

They are something humans devise.

I already replied to that.

This seems to show you really don't understand what I say.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

You replied by saying the issue is somehow unclear.

It isn't.

And when you are asked to prove it is unclear you have nothing to say.

I can see how you are confused about wastes of time.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I already replied to that.

This seems to show you really don't understand what I say.

You're just a waste of time.
EB

Eh, all by himself, and without any human intervention, my dog seems to have defined at least two categories of things: "food" and "not food". There seems to be some mismatch between our category definitions...

Sorry, it doesn't work.

For one, it's a human, you, assessing the situation and concluding to categories, whatever the detailed process you use. So, you can't show independence from the human mind.

Second, I don't think food and non-food could be construed as ontologically fundamental categories. Not in this scientific age anyway.

I could just as irrelevantly classify your post in the humorous category. Probably true, but definitely irrelevant.
EB