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

[ryan]

Can you apply the Easter Bunny to things the way you think you can apply infinity?

They are different kinds of imaginary concepts but both nothing but imaginary conceptions.

Is there a mathematical model predicting an Easter bunny? If not, why this comparison after my last post?

 

[Kharakov]

First off, I think we should clear up one thing here.

Is everyone, except untermensche, aware that the boundary of a finite area 2 dimensional object can be infinitely long?

By observation?

By imagination?

Probably. How do you ascertain anything?

So you know, you can draw an infinitely long line between 2 points. If spacetime is continuous, it is proven that you can trace out an infinite distance between any 2 points in it. Spacetime appears continuous, and nature almost certainly is (given our experiences- it's not calculating 1+1+1+1+1...). Any continuous structure can be subdivided infinitely, and between any 2 points you can trace our an infinite line, that only captures a finite area.

It's just the way it is. Pretty fucking amazing, except I've been poor as dirt, and have only been able to gain modest income doing menial labor at any point in my life. And by modest, I mean shit compared to my peers... except for the people I'm surrounded by now. Who are just rich assholes slumming it to fuck with me. They are pieces of shit. Anyway.... fuck I hate them. I'd love to kill 'em all. Wow... rants...

 

[Speakpigeon]

(Logic) capable of being described without self-contradiction

Exactly. You have no name. You have nobody willing to stand behind that nonsense.

What do you think 'Collins English Dictionary' stands for? A fictional character?


So learn something here: it's the name of one of the most respected publisher of dictionaries in English.

You think they make up definitions by gazing at the night's sky?


I said my definition was based on 'usage' and only dictionaries have the expertise to determine what usage is likely to be so 'Collins English Dictionary' is a better source than any celebrity philosopher or logician proposing their own use.

Needless to say, except for you, it can only be much better than trusting untermensche's private sense of logic.

And if you don't accept it, you can do a poll here on this forum.

Nah, you won't do that. You so know everything already.

Nothing more vacuous than claiming it is logical to say things are possible which are not.

You need to look up the word "possible" in your dictionary.

This proves you interpret expressions literally. You just don't understand that 'logically' qualifies and thereby restricts the meaning of the word 'possible' in the expression 'logically possible".

It would be legitimate for you to criticise the use of this expression, saying broadly that it is misleading, and here I would in fact have agreed.

But that's not what you're doing. Instead, you choose to just ignore what the expression means, as used by speakers far more competent than you, and go on a rampage on the pretense that talking of infinity being logically possible is somehow to suggest that infinity is actual. This is so idiotic a view that no one but you could feel it's worth pursuing.

And there's obviously no stopping you. Go on. Keep going you little headless chicken.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible

5. (Logic) logic (of a statement, formula, etc) capable of being true under some interpretation, or in some circumstances. Usual symbol: Mp or ◇p, where p is the given expression

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

Apparently, you can't even read a dictionary...
EB

 

[untermensche]

Exactly. You have no name. You have nobody willing to stand behind that nonsense.

What do you think 'Collins English Dictionary' stands for? A fictional character?

Is it a person who's opinions can be questioned?

It is capricious and arbitrary.

I said my definition was based on 'usage' and only dictionaries have the expertise to determine what usage is likely to be so 'Collins English Dictionary' is a better source than any celebrity philosopher or logician proposing their own use.

Your definition has no special authority.

I do not recognize arbitrary authority on matters that are far from somehow settled.

If you have some argument make it. Presenting arbitrary claims is worthless.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible

5. (Logic) logic (of a statement, formula, etc) capable of being true under some interpretation, or in some circumstances. Usual symbol: Mp or ◇p, where p is the given expression

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

You need to learn to read.

What does the term "capable of being true" mean?

What does it mean when something about the real world is logically capable of being true?

 

[Juma]

Fuck no. A logical possibility is NOT (necessarily) something that could happen.

Fuck yes.

There is no logic in saying things can happen that can't.

Unless you define logic as something to lead you to nonsense.

Something is logically possible if the premisses are filled and there are no contradictions.
The premisses does NOT need be of this world.

 

[Copernicus]

Fuck yes.

There is no logic in saying things can happen that can't.

Unless you define logic as something to lead you to nonsense.

Something is logically possible if the premisses are filled and there are no contradictions.
The premisses does NOT need be of this world.

This has been explained to untermensche at length. He ignores it and persists in clinging to his own private interpretation of what the expression means. He is not here to learn anything new, but to instruct others on his opinions on the matter.

 

[bilby]

The Rules of Logic - Part 1: Why Logic Always Works

In which we learn that a thing is 'Logically Possible' if it could (in principle) be done by an omnipotent entity without the creation of a contradiction.

The entire series provides a good basic introduction to logical discourse, and I would recommend that anyone should read it.

Perhaps if everyone would do so, we could avoid yet another thread in which the OP's sole achievements are to demonstrate that they don't understand most of the words and phrases that they use, nor most of the concepts against which they are railing.

Perhaps.

 

[beero1000]

The Rules of Logic - Part 1: Why Logic Always Works

In which we learn that a thing is 'Logically Possible' if it could (in principle) be done by an omnipotent entity without the creation of a contradiction.

The entire series provides a good basic introduction to logical discourse, and I would recommend that anyone should read it.

Perhaps if everyone would do so, we could avoid yet another thread in which the OP's sole achievements are to demonstrate that they don't understand most of the words and phrases that they use, nor most of the concepts against which they are railing.

Perhaps.

... For example, you cannot have a circular triangle, because a circle, by definition, has no straight lines and no corners...

Why is that EVERYONE's terrible example of a logical contradiction!? What definition of a circle are you people using? Argh... /mathrant

 

[Speakpigeon]

What do you think 'Collins English Dictionary' stands for? A fictional character?

Is it a person who's opinions can be questioned?

I'm sure Collins dictionaries are made by real people. So, yes, you could question their definitions. You could start a campaign in the media and if you did it right you would get a response from Collins. If you had a point you could even sue them in court and obtain damages. You won't ever do that of course but that will be because you know you don't have a point.

More practically, if you disagree with the Collins definition, you can do what you asked me, that is provide a quote from a well-known and authoritative figure that would support your views. Of course, you won't do that either because nobody well-known and authoritative supports your views.

Ultimately, I've shown the definition I used is in line with usage as reported by a well-known and authoritative dictionary publisher. It's worth what it's worth but it's certainly better than what you can do, which is just make up your private definition justified by absolutely nothing.

When you can do better than what I did, you'll have a point.

It is capricious and arbitrary.

It's obviously not. You are.

I said my definition was based on 'usage' and only dictionaries have the expertise to determine what usage is likely to be so 'Collins English Dictionary' is a better source than any celebrity philosopher or logician proposing their own use.

Your definition has no special authority.

Collins definitely have more authority than you.

I do not recognize arbitrary authority on matters that are far from somehow settled.

Who cares what you recognise?

I bet no one but you.

If you have some argument make it. Presenting arbitrary claims is worthless.

Look who is talking! All you can do is make extravagant claims, which are effectively arbitrary and worthless.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/possible

5. (Logic) logic (of a statement, formula, etc) capable of being true under some interpretation, or in some circumstances. Usual symbol: Mp or ◇p, where p is the given expression

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014 © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014

You need to learn to read.

What does the term "capable of being true" mean?

You need to learn to read.

"Capable of being true under some interpretation, or in some circumstances" means that it could be true of the real world if a certain interpretation was true of it, or if certain circumstances obtained in the real world. "It could be true" here only means that it wouldn't necessarily be true even in this case.

If you don't like it please put forward a better wording for this sense of the word 'possible'.

What does it mean when something about the real world is logically capable of being true?

You need to learn to read.

Where does it say it's about the "real world"?

Where does it say "logically capable of being true"?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Something is logically possible if the premisses are filled and there are no contradictions.
The premisses does NOT need be of this world.

This has been explained to untermensche at length. He ignores it and persists in clinging to his own private interpretation of what the expression means. He is not here to learn anything new, but to instruct others on his opinions on the matter.

You mean that untermensche cannot possibly be saved from himself?!

Yeah, I guess you're right.
EB

 

[untermensche]

Can you apply the Easter Bunny to things the way you think you can apply infinity?

They are different kinds of imaginary concepts but both nothing but imaginary conceptions.

Is there a mathematical model predicting an Easter bunny? If not, why this comparison after my last post?

No model predicts infinity.

Models predict what will happen next, not some imaginary story about something going on forever.

Nothing predicts what will happen in "eternity", an imaginary state.

An equation may have infinity as an answer or infinity within it.

Infinity is a mathematical tool, nothing more.

That fools try to apply it to real things does not make the exercise more than foolishness.

 

[untermensche]

Where does it say it's about the "real world"?

What world do you think possibilities exist?

An imaginary event is not a possibility.

It is something that can be created at will.

 

[fromderinside]

Why need be subjective imaginary?

 

[untermensche]

I can imagine throwing a fine delicate vase against a solid wall as hard as I can and having it bounce back into my hand unbroken.

By what logic do we say this is a possibility?

How do we model this possibility?

 

[Juma]

... For example, you cannot have a circular triangle, because a circle, by definition, has no straight lines and no corners...

Why is that EVERYONE's terrible example of a logical contradiction!? What definition of a circle are you people using? Argh... /mathrant

I love the "square with corners removed by smaller squares"- circle.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The Rules of Logic - Part 1: Why Logic Always Works

In which we learn that a thing is 'Logically Possible' if it could (in principle) be done by an omnipotent entity without the creation of a contradiction.

The entire series provides a good basic introduction to logical discourse, and I would recommend that anyone should read it.

Perhaps if everyone would do so, we could avoid yet another thread in which the OP's sole achievements are to demonstrate that they don't understand most of the words and phrases that they use, nor most of the concepts against which they are railing.

Perhaps.

Not so good, no.

It's all well meaning but also a bit fuzzy on the fundamentals and includes confused statements about the relation between maths and logic. The guy doesn't even specify how he would know what the rules of logic are to begin with. He also seems to make no distinction between logic as human beings are supposed to do it and formal logic.

That being said, all the books on logic I've read are somewhat lacking in terms of presentational standards. They're always philosophically flimsy, often pathetically naïve in that respect. And, crucially, logicians seem to differ as to their justifications, if they thought about any justification at all. They also disagree about the basic principles of logic itself. Finding an authoritative source isn't a trivial task.

The idea that "a thing is 'Logically Possible' if it could (in principle) be done by an omnipotent entity without the creation of a contradiction" is good enough to make people understand (I mean normal people, not untermensche) but it also needlessly subjects your explanation to the notion of omnipotence, which is like explaining the universe by saying it's God's creation. Not razor-like this. A straightforward dictionary definition is probably more useful.

Anyway, thank you for trying.
EB

 

[bilby]

The Rules of Logic - Part 1: Why Logic Always Works

In which we learn that a thing is 'Logically Possible' if it could (in principle) be done by an omnipotent entity without the creation of a contradiction.

The entire series provides a good basic introduction to logical discourse, and I would recommend that anyone should read it.

Perhaps if everyone would do so, we could avoid yet another thread in which the OP's sole achievements are to demonstrate that they don't understand most of the words and phrases that they use, nor most of the concepts against which they are railing.

Perhaps.

Not so good, no.

It's all well meaning but also a bit fuzzy on the fundamentals and includes confused statements about the relation between maths and logic. The guy doesn't even specify how he would know what the rules of logic are to begin with. He also seems to make no distinction between logic as human beings are supposed to do it and formal logic.

That being said, all the books on logic I've read are somewhat lacking in terms of presentational standards. They're always philosophically flimsy, often pathetically naïve in that respect. And, crucially, logicians seem to differ as to their justifications, if they thought about any justification at all. They also disagree about the basic principles of logic itself. Finding an authoritative source isn't a trivial task.

The idea that "a thing is 'Logically Possible' if it could (in principle) be done by an omnipotent entity without the creation of a contradiction" is good enough to make people understand (I mean normal people, not untermensche) but it also needlessly subjects your explanation to the notion of omnipotence, which is like explaining the universe by saying it's God's creation. Not razor-like this. A straightforward dictionary definition is probably more useful.

Anyway, thank you for trying.
EB

It's a basic introduction, aimed at the completely ignorant. Of course it's no good when viewed from the perspective of an expert; that's why all technical organisations which deal directly with the public need to keep an in-house ignoramus to test their instruction manuals against.

An attempt to be rigorous in an introductory text leads to boredom or confusion, when the goal should merely be sufficient understanding to be less likely to make gross errors.

Experts tend to be very bad at assessing the difference between a gross error and a trivial one, as they consider all errors to be unacceptable.

 

[ryan]

Is there a mathematical model predicting an Easter bunny? If not, why this comparison after my last post?

No model predicts infinity.

Models predict what will happen next, not some imaginary story about something going on forever.

Nothing predicts what will happen in "eternity", an imaginary state.

I agree that all predictions are in an imaginary state because they haven't happened yet.

But the rest of what you said before that just says that infinity is not predicted without anything to back up the claim. You can't just falsify this theoretical physics paper with what you have above.

An equation may have infinity as an answer or infinity within it.

Infinity is a mathematical tool, nothing more.

So why is infinity nothing more than a tool? This is just saying that infinity doesn't exist with no reason why.

I need a better argument than the model that I presented. You haven't given me reasons here as to why infinity is impossible.

 

[fromderinside]

Experts tend to be very bad at assessing the difference between a gross error and a trivial one, as they consider all errors to be unacceptable.

I've always has visualized 'has been concentrated drips' to be ancient, stooped, bearded, little people, with no affect whatever. I think it was disgraced VP Spiro Agnew who re-popularized the image 'pointy headed intellectual'.

Didn't want to be called doctor by anyone for many years after that.

Trivia bonus. Who was the person who served as Speaker, Vice President. and President within a ten month interval?

 

[untermensche]

This is just saying that infinity doesn't exist with no reason why.

You have not shown how there is a difference between saying time is infinite and saying time is the Easter Bunny.

Sure, infinity is a mathematical tool, but that doesn't make it real somehow.

By what logic do you arrive at the conclusion that mathematical tools, mere imaginary concepts, can be realized?