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

[untermensche]

In what possible world is it true?

How do you know about these possible worlds and what is possible in them?

Not sure how to respond. My best guess is that you aren't familiar with modal logic. Is that the case?

That is an evasion, not an answer.

What are these imaginary other worlds you speak of?

You mean they are theoretical without a bit of evidence supporting their existence?

 

[untermensche]

If the building of the skyscraper didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the journey didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the life didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

If the universe didn't begin that means it doesn't exist.

Let me see if I can mimic your argument in such a way that we get the opposite result:

If you didn't have parents, then you don't exist.

If your parents didn't have parents, then they didn't exist.

If your grandparents didn't have parents, then your grandparents didn't exist.

And so on back forever.....

So you think some human has existed that didn't have parents?

I'd love to see you prove that.

 

[untermensche]

In what possible world is it true?

How do you know about these possible worlds and what is possible in them?

The world is not as we perceive it. Extrapolating our perception of the world to Reality is a mistake. Reality is bizarre and counterintuitive.
God plays dice.

The world is exactly as we perceive it.

But we perceive it at a scale where it appears to be deterministic.

At smaller scales it appears differently.

 

[Bomb#20]

Is there anything unclear about what is meant by the hypothesis, "For every event, there existed at least one earlier event."? Can you exhibit a proof that taking that statement as a premise implies a self-contradiction?

That is merely an unsupported and unsupportable claim. In that regard it is nothing to take seriously.

Unsupported, certainly. Unsupportable? That's not obvious. How do we know what some brilliant future philosopher might figure out? Do you have proof that the hypothesis is unsupportable?

As for whether to take it seriously, that's a matter of taste. The world is overflowing with unsupported but logically possible hypotheses -- it's logically possible that there's a teacup orbiting Jupiter. Mere logical possibility is not a good reason to take a hypothesis seriously.

There is no contradiction in saying the Big Bang is some miracle of some gods.

I agree the criteria is not clear. Nobody understands what a god is.

At least nobody who's been able to explain it to you or me.

And nobody understands what it means for something to go on without end.

That is not a clear criteria at all. Where would I observe this phenomena?

You don't have to observe something to understand what it means. I understand what it means for Brutus to stab Caesar even though there's no place I could observe that phenomenon. What it means for something to go on without end is that every event is followed by more events. An event is either followed by another or it isn't, just as a point on Earth either has more points north of it or it does not.

So we simply ask, "Is there some event that has no other event after it?", the same way we could ask, "Is there some point on Earth that has no point further north than it?". It's a perfectly clear question. If the answer is "Yes", as in the case of the Earth, then we get to ask the perfectly clear followup question, "Which point is that?". And that has a clear answer, "The North Pole". Likewise, "Is there some event that has no other event after it?" and "Which event has no event after it?" are perfectly clear questions.

So are you going to try to argue that one and the same criterion can be clear if it says "Yes" and unclear if it says "No"?

 

[Bomb#20]

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

If I asked you if it was logically possible that the Big Bang was a flozgup of some bored quirmbles, would you say "Yes, it's not a contradiction."? Isn't the correct answer "What's a flozgup? What's a quirmble?"?

What's a miracle? What's a god?

 

[Wiploc]

It's not a contradiction. There are possible worlds in which it is true. Yes, it is logically possible.

If I asked you if it was logically possible that the Big Bang was a flozgup of some bored quirmbles, would you say "Yes, it's not a contradiction."? Isn't the correct answer "What's a flozgup? What's a quirmble?"?

What's a miracle? What's a god?

I grant your point, but I don't think it is the only point to be made.

There are possible worlds in which things that untermensche and I would both recognize as gods were in a state that untermensche and I would both recognize as boredom and so created what untermensche and I would both recognize as a big bang.

You started your question with, "If I asked you." I could challenge the definitions of those words too, but I don't see how that would be productive.

That said, let me repeat that I do grant your point. It just wasn't the point I was addressing.

 

[untermensche]

That is merely an unsupported and unsupportable claim. In that regard it is nothing to take seriously.

Unsupported, certainly. Unsupportable? That's not obvious. How do we know what some brilliant future philosopher might figure out? Do you have proof that the hypothesis is unsupportable?

It is a claim about "every event".

Since it is impossible to examine "every event" it is an unsupportable claim.

Could it possibly someday in the future be supportable? I doubt it, but nobody knows that. All we know for certain is that presently it is unsupportable.

As for whether to take it seriously, that's a matter of taste. The world is overflowing with unsupported but logically possible hypotheses -- it's logically possible that there's a teacup orbiting Jupiter. Mere logical possibility is not a good reason to take a hypothesis seriously.

It is not logical to claim a teacup is orbiting Jupiter without evidence. That is not a matter of taste.

It is a matter of what can be supported with some kind of argument that makes sense or actual evidence.

How did the cup get there? If all you have is empty speculation and no evidence you do not have a logical possibility. You have a wild unsupported guess, not the same thing.

And nobody understands what it means for something to go on without end.

That is not a clear criteria at all. Where would I observe this phenomena?

You don't have to observe something to understand what it means. I understand what it means for Brutus to stab Caesar even though there's no place I could observe that phenomenon. What it means for something to go on without end is that every event is followed by more events. An event is either followed by another or it isn't, just as a point on Earth either has more points north of it or it does not.

You understand what it is for one human to stab another. You have no understanding of how Brutus stabbed Caesar. You don't know what weapon he used. You don't know how he used the weapon. You don't know where in his body he stabbed Caesar.

If you think understanding nothing about an event is actually understanding the event I can see your difficulty.

"Something to go on without end" are words. Not an understanding of anything. What does it look like when something is going on without end? How do we recognize the phenomena?

Or do some just look at a phenomena and claim it can go on without end without the least bit of evidence to support the wild claim?

In other words an empty claim. As empty as a claim about how Brutus stabbed Caesar.

 

[Bomb#20]

I grant your point, but I don't think it is the only point to be made.

There are possible worlds in which things that untermensche and I would both recognize as gods were in a state that untermensche and I would both recognize as boredom and so created what untermensche and I would both recognize as a big bang.

You started your question with, "If I asked you." I could challenge the definitions of those words too, but I don't see how that would be productive.

That said, let me repeat that I do grant your point. It just wasn't the point I was addressing.

We both understand what "If I asked you" means, whereas I don't understand what "god" means. And untermensche says nobody understands what a god is, so I doubt if things you'd recognize as gods are also things he'd recognize as gods. My issue wasn't that you need to define all your terms, but rather that you defined logical possibility only as non-contradiction, and I think clarity is also a requirement. If you think "god" is clear, we can agree to disagree. Peace.

 

[beero1000]

In what possible world is it true?

How do you know about these possible worlds and what is possible in them?

Not sure how to respond. My best guess is that you aren't familiar with modal logic. Is that the case?

Oh, you sweet summer child...

 

[untermensche]

Not sure how to respond. My best guess is that you aren't familiar with modal logic. Is that the case?

Oh, you sweet summer child...

Yes I know.

It's imaginary universes all the way down.

 

[Wiploc]

I grant your point, but I don't think it is the only point to be made.

There are possible worlds in which things that untermensche and I would both recognize as gods were in a state that untermensche and I would both recognize as boredom and so created what untermensche and I would both recognize as a big bang.

You started your question with, "If I asked you." I could challenge the definitions of those words too, but I don't see how that would be productive.

That said, let me repeat that I do grant your point. It just wasn't the point I was addressing.

We both understand what "If I asked you" means, whereas I don't understand what "god" means. And untermensche says nobody understands what a god is, so I doubt if things you'd recognize as gods are also things he'd recognize as gods. My issue wasn't that you need to define all your terms, but rather that you defined logical possibility only as non-contradiction, and I think clarity is also a requirement. If you think "god" is clear, we can agree to disagree. Peace.

I don't insist that "god" is clear, only that it can be clear when two people agree on a meaning.

And I don't want to spend my life attempting to define that word to everyone's satisfaction.

 

[fast]

Is it logically possible that Jesus was the son of god?

Was it logically possible that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods?

What does it mean for something to be logically possible? What are the objective criteria to determine such a thing?

How does logic make things possible?

Does logic or modeling off data, or actual data, show it is possible or impossible to move faster than the speed of light?

There is no logic in saying because there was a yesterday that means there may have been infinite yesterdays. No logic to saying because the past is a mental collection of present moments those present moments were possibly infinite.

How does some idea with no evidence to support it become logically possible?

Logic doesn't make things possible; illogic makes things impossible. For something to be logically possible there are two requirements. It must not involve a contradiction in terms, and the criteria for it must be clear.

So, that said, no, it isn't logically possible that Jesus was the son of god or that the Big Bang was a miracle of some bored gods, because the words "god" and "miracle" have no clear meaning. It's of course logically possible to move faster than the speed of light; data and data models only address whether it's physically possible, which is a different question.

So what that means for an infinite past, anyone can figure out for himself. Is there anything unclear about what is meant by the hypothesis, "For every event, there existed at least one earlier event."? Can you exhibit a proof that taking that statement as a premise implies a self-contradiction?

I don't think clarity is a necessary condition for whether some proposition is logically possible. Knowledge of whether some proposition is logically possible (maybe), but that's a tad bit different.

 

[Wiploc]

Not sure how to respond. My best guess is that you aren't familiar with modal logic. Is that the case?

That is an evasion, not an answer.

Insult? Did I offend you?

If you answer my question, I may know how to proceed. As it is, I do not.

 

[untermensche]

That is an evasion, not an answer.

Insult? Did I offend you?

If you answer my question, I may know how to proceed. As it is, I do not.

Not a personal insult.

A characterization of a reply.

You talk of absurd possibilities then try to evade their absurdity with a label.

 

[Wiploc]

Insult? Did I offend you?

If you answer my question, I may know how to proceed. As it is, I do not.

Not a personal insult.

A characterization of a reply.

You talk of absurd possibilities then try to evade their absurdity with a label.

We're done here.

 

[untermensche]

Not a personal insult.

A characterization of a reply.

You talk of absurd possibilities then try to evade their absurdity with a label.

We're done here.

I never saw any start.

You claim gods are possible in some imaginary world somewhere.

Good luck with that.

 

[Wiploc]

We're done here.

I never saw any start.

You claim gods are possible in some imaginary world somewhere.

Good luck with that.

Please don't talk to me or about me anymore in this thread.

 

[fast]

I thought the notion of an imaginary world was originally made up as a teaching tool to assist students understand the 'if' conditional.

 

[untermensche]

I never saw any start.

You claim gods are possible in some imaginary world somewhere.

Good luck with that.

Please don't talk to me or about me anymore in this thread.

I have not yet talked about you. I address whom I choose. But I will talk about the ideas you presented as absurd and silly.

Worthless.

And characterize people who run away from ideas as quickly as they spew them as frivolous.

 

[untermensche]

I thought the notion of an imaginary world was originally made up as a teaching tool to assist students understand the 'if' conditional.

Imaginary worlds were introduced into physics as a way to deal with the problems some had with the anthropic principle. And the claims that very specific parameters must be met for intelligent life to arise.

Since it is clear the universe is such that intelligent life can spring from it some physicists proposed this may be due to the number of universes, and in most universes intelligent life will not arise.

I don't know if it teaches us anything about this universe except some ideas give rise to other ideas.