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

[fast]

Even though there is evidence that their model is based off of, I will drop the whole theory argument.

Even if there were a lack of evidence, it still doesn't explain why you think infinity is impossible. Is everything with a lack of evidence impossible?

Imaginary invented concepts do not have a likelihood of coming to life.

The Easter Bunny knocking on your door is as likely as finding a real infinity.

Growing wings and flying around the Moon is as likely as finding a real infinity.

It is nothing but foolishness to ever think invented imaginary concepts could ever have a real existence.

It is human arrogance, thinking something can be imagined into existence, combined with ignorance, not knowing when something is a purely imaginary concept.

You throw the word concept around a little too loosely. The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but suppose for a moment it did. You wouldn't characterize it as a concept. I have a concept for a new kind of rake, but there is no such rake that exists; what I have is a concept, and what I don't have is what the concept is a concept of, namely the rake. I ought not confuse the rake (which doesn't exist) with what does exist, namely the concept of a rake. If the concept does exist (and it does), then it's just what it is, a mental object--a concept, but if the rake did exist (it doesn't, but if it did) it would be a physical object. Just because the the physical object does not exist, that doesn't make it a mental object; after all, remember, the concept of the rake is what is a concept, not the rake. The rake simply doesn't exist, and the non existence of something doesn't make it something else that does exist.

You think the Easter Bunny is imaginary. Okay fine. You think (I hope) there's such a thing as the concept of the Easter Bunny. The concept (the mental object) has the property of being mind dependent; hence, with no mind, there is no mental concept. The concept has properties and therefore exists. All I'm saying that exists at the moment is the concept--not what the concept is a concept of--which is something entirely different. Like with the rake example, the concept exists (what is a mental phenomenon), but the actual rake (what would be physical, in the non mental non abstract way) doesn't exist.

The point is neither the rake nor the Easter Bunny should be confused with their corresponding conceptualizations. What I have argued is that you're wrong when you think the Easter bunny is a concept.

 

[untermensche]

Imaginary invented concepts do not have a likelihood of coming to life.

The Easter Bunny knocking on your door is as likely as finding a real infinity.

Growing wings and flying around the Moon is as likely as finding a real infinity.

It is nothing but foolishness to ever think invented imaginary concepts could ever have a real existence.

It is human arrogance, thinking something can be imagined into existence, combined with ignorance, not knowing when something is a purely imaginary concept.

You throw the word concept around a little too loosely. The Easter Bunny doesn't exist, but suppose for a moment it did. You wouldn't characterize it as a concept.

How could it exist?

A magic rabbit enthralled with the lives of children that somehow enters their homes, millions of them, and leaves little baskets and other offerings on a Christian holiday?

How do we just "imagine" such a thing could actually exist?

Have we not gone too far already by even honoring this concept with the possibility that it could somehow exist?

What I have argued is that you're wrong when you think the Easter bunny is a concept.

Not a single concept. A collection of concepts. One of which is being magic.

Kind of like something going on and on without end. An infinite, unending, supply of energy. A magical supply of energy. A miracle.

Maybe I should compare it to the Energizer Bunny?

 

[fast]

How could it exist?

I'm not sure why you ask, but since magical animals cannot exist, and since that's just what it would if it did exist, it (therefore) cannot exist; moreover, things that cannot exist do not exist; however, keep in mind exactly what doesn't exist. The concept of the Easter Bunny is not in question. The concept does exist. What we're saying cannot exist is the Easter Bunny. Please, let's not conflate the two and refer to the Easter Bunny (which doesn't exist) as a concept.

A magic rabbit enthralled with the lives of children that somehow enters their homes, millions of them, and leaves little baskets and other offerings on a Christian holiday?

What would be leaving those baskets would be a physical rabbit with magical powers. Since there is nothing in the world to instantiate what would be a physical entity with magical powers, the physical entity with magical powers doesn't exist. What doesn't exist? The Bunny. What exists? Our mental concepts of the Bunny.

Don't say that the Easter Bunny is an imaginary concept. Hell, don't say that the Easter Bunny is a concept. The concept is the concept. It's real and has properties. We call that (not the Easter Bunny) but rather a concept of the Easter Bunny.

How do we just "imagine" such a thing could actually exist?

Easily, just use your imagination like you did when you wrote earlier of the Bunny leaving little baskets. You didn't imagine it into existence, but you imagined it as if it actually exists.

Have we not gone too far already by even honoring this concept with the possibility that it could somehow exist?

You can't help yourself, I understand, but once again, the concept does exist. What doesn't exist is what the concept is a concept of. I can number them if you like. The concept of the Easter Bunny (1) does exist. It's a concept. Number 1 exists. What exists? (1), the concept of the Easter Bunny.

Is the Easter Bunny a concept? Nope. The Easter Bunny (2) doesn't exist. Don't confuse the Easter Bunny concept (number 1, slightly Rearticulated) with what would otherwise be a furry creature with magical powers (2).

Please, don't ask how it could have magical powers. Resist!

 

[untermensche]

Have we not gone too far already by even honoring this concept with the possibility that it could somehow exist?

You can't help yourself, I understand, but once again, the concept does exist.

Yes. Can it exist as more than an imaginary concept?

Can it have real existence?

That is what I have been talking about here for a while.

 

[fast]

You can't help yourself, I understand, but once again, the concept does exist.

Yes. Can it exist as more than an imaginary concept?

Can it have real existence?

That is what I have been talking about here for a while.

The Easter Bunny is an imaginary animal. Guess what is imaginary. The animal. There's not an animal at all. To say it's imaginary is to deny that it exists. What doesn't exist? The animal.

Do you realize what YOU have been saying?

 

[ryan]

Even though there is evidence that their model is based off of, I will drop the whole theory argument.

Even if there were a lack of evidence, it still doesn't explain why you think infinity is impossible. Is everything with a lack of evidence impossible?

Imaginary invented concepts do not have a likelihood of coming to life.

The Easter Bunny knocking on your door is as likely as finding a real infinity.

Growing wings and flying around the Moon is as likely as finding a real infinity.

Again, why is the inability to find/detect something make it impossible/nonexistent? Are you really saying that any theory that proposes something not yet detected must fail?

It is nothing but foolishness to ever think invented imaginary concepts could ever have a real existence.

It is human arrogance, thinking something can be imagined into existence, combined with ignorance, not knowing when something is a purely imaginary concept.

I notice you start off this post easing your position a bit by saying that "imaginary invented concepts" are not likely. And I still agree with that because it seems that more theories fail than succeed. But then by the end of the post you revert back to claiming they are impossible. Which is it?

 

[fromderinside]

... an answer ... from him ........ impossible

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Can it exist as more than an imaginary concept?

Can it have real existence?

That is what I have been talking about here for a while.

The Easter Bunny is an imaginary animal. Guess what is imaginary. The animal. There's not an animal at all. To say it's imaginary is to deny that it exists. What doesn't exist? The animal.

Do you realize what YOU have been saying?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

There is the universe of imaginary conceptions. Not imaginary animals.

The imaginary conceptions never become real animals. That is my whole point.

Just as imaginary conceptions like something going on without end or an endless series cannot come to life somehow either.

If you are saying I am being redundant and I don't have to say "imaginary" since all conceptions are imaginary, that is true, but I like to proclaim the nature of these conceptions.

 

[untermensche]

Imaginary invented concepts do not have a likelihood of coming to life.

The Easter Bunny knocking on your door is as likely as finding a real infinity.

Growing wings and flying around the Moon is as likely as finding a real infinity.

Again, why is the inability to find/detect something make it impossible/nonexistent? Are you really saying that any theory that proposes something not yet detected must fail?

It is nothing but foolishness to ever think invented imaginary concepts could ever have a real existence.

It is human arrogance, thinking something can be imagined into existence, combined with ignorance, not knowing when something is a purely imaginary concept.

I notice you start off this post easing your position a bit by saying that "imaginary invented concepts" are not likely. And I still agree with that because it seems that more theories fail than succeed. But then by the end of the post you revert back to claiming they are impossible. Which is it?

Saying something is impossible is the default position unless and until something is shown to be possible. Skepticism of claims of possibility is the scientific outlook.

We only know when something is possible when there is evidence it is possible. Not a theory, evidence.

 

[fast]

The Easter Bunny is an imaginary animal. Guess what is imaginary. The animal. There's not an animal at all. To say it's imaginary is to deny that it exists. What doesn't exist? The animal.

Do you realize what YOU have been saying?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

There is the universe of imaginary conceptions. Not imaginary animals.

The imaginary conceptions never become real animals. That is my whole point.

Just as imaginary conceptions like something going on without end or an endless series cannot come to life somehow either.

If you are saying I am being redundant and I don't have to say "imaginary" since all conceptions are imaginary, that is true, but I like to proclaim the nature of these conceptions.

I agree with the point you're making. The problem isn't that we don't share a common belief. The problem is in how we don't always mean the same thing by the words we use.

If I have a concept, then I have something ... something that is real (and not imaginary). The concept I have (if I in fact have a concept) may be of something that is real or it may be of something imaginary. If it's of something real or if it's of something imaginary, then either way, what I have is real. So, either a) I have a real concept that is a concept of something real, or b) I have a real concept that is a concept of something imaginary. In my view, it's critical to distinguish between 1) a concept and 2) what the concept is a concept of.

What's imaginary isn't the concept. It's very much real. The concept itself, that is. What may or may not be real; moreover, what may or may not be imaginary is not the concept (1) but rather what the concept is a concept of (2).

Telling me that my concept of the Easter Bunny is imaginary is like telling me I have no concept at all. Of course, I know what you really mean. You mean what's imaginary is what the concept is a concept of, namely the Easter Bunny.

 

[ryan]

Again, why is the inability to find/detect something make it impossible/nonexistent? Are you really saying that any theory that proposes something not yet detected must fail?

It is nothing but foolishness to ever think invented imaginary concepts could ever have a real existence.

It is human arrogance, thinking something can be imagined into existence, combined with ignorance, not knowing when something is a purely imaginary concept.

I notice you start off this post easing your position a bit by saying that "imaginary invented concepts" are not likely. And I still agree with that because it seems that more theories fail than succeed. But then by the end of the post you revert back to claiming they are impossible. Which is it?

Saying something is impossible is the default position unless and until something is shown to be possible. Skepticism of claims of possibility is the scientific outlook.

We only know when something is possible when there is evidence it is possible. Not a theory, evidence.

What kind of evidence do you mean?

 

[untermensche]

Again, why is the inability to find/detect something make it impossible/nonexistent? Are you really saying that any theory that proposes something not yet detected must fail?

It is nothing but foolishness to ever think invented imaginary concepts could ever have a real existence.

It is human arrogance, thinking something can be imagined into existence, combined with ignorance, not knowing when something is a purely imaginary concept.

I notice you start off this post easing your position a bit by saying that "imaginary invented concepts" are not likely. And I still agree with that because it seems that more theories fail than succeed. But then by the end of the post you revert back to claiming they are impossible. Which is it?

Saying something is impossible is the default position unless and until something is shown to be possible. Skepticism of claims of possibility is the scientific outlook.

We only know when something is possible when there is evidence it is possible. Not a theory, evidence.

What kind of evidence do you mean?

That is a good question.

For those who claim infinity could be real it is up to them to say what would constitute evidence of infinity.

I don't have the slightest idea how there could be evidence of infinity.

A beating heart is not evidence it will beat forever.

 

[ryan]

What kind of evidence do you mean?

That is a good question.

For those who claim infinity could be real it is up to them to say what would constitute evidence of infinity.

I don't have the slightest idea how there could be evidence of infinity.

We may not have the kind of evidence that lets us directly detect all of infinity, but there is other kinds of evidence that is much less direct.

A beating heart is not evidence it will beat forever.

Hmmm, you might be underestimating the theoretical physicist's (and community of peers') scientific understanding of the scientific method.

 

[untermensche]

A beating heart is not evidence it will beat forever.

Hmmm, you might be underestimating the theoretical physicist's (and community of peers') scientific understanding of the scientific method.

There is nothing you can look and logically claim it has or will exist for 'eternity'.

There is nothing that can justify such a claim.

 

[ryan]

Hmmm, you might be underestimating the theoretical physicist's (and community of peers') scientific understanding of the scientific method.

There is nothing you can look and logically claim it has or will exist for 'eternity'.

Why do we have to look at it?

 

[untermensche]

There is nothing you can look and logically claim it has or will exist for 'eternity'.

Why do we have to look at it?

That is just a way of saying 'experience in some way'.

 

[ryan]

Why do we have to look at it?

That is just a way of saying 'experience in some way'.

We don't really experience anything outside of the brain. Everything is indirect to us, but not to our instruments. The change to the instrument is what gives us information and measurement. We still do not experience the change to the instrument either, but we do experience the outcome of a chain of reactions that leads to an experience.

 

[untermensche]

That is just a way of saying 'experience in some way'.

We don't really experience anything outside of the brain. Everything is indirect to us, but not to our instruments. The change to the instrument is what gives us information and measurement. We still do not experience the change to the instrument either, but we do experience the outcome of a chain of reactions that leads to an experience.

To know something is out there the brain has to be able to experience it directly or experience it's effects in some way.

Yes, our universes revolve around our brains capacities.

If our brain, or now our instruments, cannot detect something it is not there.

As far as we are concerned.

 

[ryan]

We don't really experience anything outside of the brain. Everything is indirect to us, but not to our instruments. The change to the instrument is what gives us information and measurement. We still do not experience the change to the instrument either, but we do experience the outcome of a chain of reactions that leads to an experience.

To know something is out there the brain has to be able to experience it directly or experience it's effects in some way.

That is why we use instruments, to detect things the brain can't or doesn't.

The paper tries to explain that the effects we detect today in the universe on our instruments are what we would expect from A, B, C and an infinite past. This isn't the only possible explanation for what we understand today regarding our universe, but like all theories it general fits.

Maybe A, B, C and a finite past does not give as good of an explanation of how we have today's universe, probably wouldn't; scientists usually want to avoid infinities whenever they can. There's a reason they chose infinity and not finite. Wouldn't you think, especially since peer reviewers would have been licking their lips to try to find unnecessary claims of infinity?

 

[untermensche]

To know something is out there the brain has to be able to experience it directly or experience it's effects in some way.

That is why we use instruments, to detect things the brain can't or doesn't.

The paper tries to explain that the effects we detect today in the universe on our instruments are what we would expect from A, B, C and an infinite past. This isn't the only possible explanation for what we understand today regarding our universe, but like all theories it general fits.

Maybe A, B, C and a finite past does not give as good of an explanation of how we have today's universe, probably wouldn't; scientists usually want to avoid infinities whenever they can. There's a reason they chose infinity and not finite. Wouldn't you think, especially since peer reviewers would have been licking their lips to try to find unnecessary claims of infinity?

So they create the expectation and then confirm what they have created.

It isn't evidence of much except humans generally find what they want to find.

Tell me about this expectation.

What would we expect from an infinite past?

And how did you come up with this expectation?