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

[Kharakov]

Untermenche is sounding ever more like the failing Big Ben.

I wonder if The UnderLord knows....



holy crap that's slow.

 

[untermensche]

Eternity is obviously infinite, unless you're an AI. beep.

A substrate of reality has obviously always existed (is eternal), unless you're an AI. whizzzz brrrrrooomm beep boop whhheeeeeee.

Eternity is merely BY DEFINITION infinite.

Both completely imaginary.

Humans have imaginations.

They can imagine eternity and infinity and gods and Santa Clause.

Unfortunately humans sometimes don't comprehend the difference between what exists in their imagination and what exists in the real world.

Like children they think Santa Clause, or eternity, are something real.

 

[Kharakov]

It's extremely simple if you're not a robot, and still fun to argue against robots about if you aren't as well, but possibly... distracting?

Things don't start to exist without something causing them, therefore something has always existed, because things start to exist.

 

[fromderinside]

Like children they think Santa Clause, or eternity, are something real.

Yet write a book, or drop an A bomb and.......oh shit...........they come alive.

- - - Updated - - -

It's extremely simple if you're not a robot, and still fun to argue against robots about if you aren't as well, but possibly... distracting?

Things don't start to exist without something causing them, therefore something has always existed, because things start to exist.

Just though of first cause ......... I wonder what effect lead to it?

 

[fast]

Eternity is obviously infinite, unless you're an AI. beep.

A substrate of reality has obviously always existed (is eternal), unless you're an AI. whizzzz brrrrrooomm beep boop whhheeeeeee.

Eternity is merely BY DEFINITION infinite.

Both completely imaginary.

Humans have imaginations.

They can imagine eternity and infinity and gods and Santa Clause.

Unfortunately humans sometimes don't comprehend the difference between what exists in their imagination and what exists in the real world.

Like children they think Santa Clause, or eternity, are something real.

The expression of the idea that you have in mind when you say, "exists in their imagination", I don't agee with. That's not to say I don't agree with you, just how you say it. Anything that exists is real, so if Santa exists, then he's real, but if he doesn't exist then he's not real, yet you say he exists. You think you're absolving yourself by specifying that it's in the imagination that he exists (and my detection of the underlying confusion enables me to discern what you mean from what you say).

 

[untermensche]

It's extremely simple if you're not a robot, and still fun to argue against robots about if you aren't as well, but possibly... distracting?

Things don't start to exist without something causing them, therefore something has always existed, because things start to exist.

You are using observed data (things existing) to make a conclusion.

Logically your conclusion can only go as far as your observed data. No further.

 

[untermensche]

Eternity is merely BY DEFINITION infinite.

Both completely imaginary.

Humans have imaginations.

They can imagine eternity and infinity and gods and Santa Clause.

Unfortunately humans sometimes don't comprehend the difference between what exists in their imagination and what exists in the real world.

Like children they think Santa Clause, or eternity, are something real.

The expression of the idea that you have in mind when you say, "exists in their imagination", I don't agee with. That's not to say I don't agree with you, just how you say it. Anything that exists is real, so if Santa exists, then he's real, but if he doesn't exist then he's not real, yet you say he exists. You think you're absolving yourself by specifying that it's in the imagination that he exists (and my detection of the underlying confusion enables me to discern what you mean from what you say).

If you can imagine something then you have some evidence of it.

But I don't think anybody can even imagine infinity. They can just understand the concept. The concept, combined with other concepts, has mathematical utility. But it has no existence, neither real or imagined.

 

[bilby]

The expression of the idea that you have in mind when you say, "exists in their imagination", I don't agee with. That's not to say I don't agree with you, just how you say it. Anything that exists is real, so if Santa exists, then he's real, but if he doesn't exist then he's not real, yet you say he exists. You think you're absolving yourself by specifying that it's in the imagination that he exists (and my detection of the underlying confusion enables me to discern what you mean from what you say).

If you can imagine something then you have some evidence of it.

But I don't think anybody can even imagine infinity. They can just understand the concept. The concept, combined with other concepts, has mathematical utility. But it has no existence, neither real or imagined.

What you think other people might or might not be able to imagine has exactly no bearing on their actual abilities.

Your disbelief is not evidence for anything - not for the non-existence of infinities, nor the inability of others to imagine them, nor of anything else.

Surely you have met people who are too stupid to grasp some concept that you are perfectly comfortable and familiar with? What makes you think that you cannot be that person to someone else?

Reality doesn't care what you cannot believe. Nor does anyone else.

 

[untermensche]

If you can imagine something then you have some evidence of it.

But I don't think anybody can even imagine infinity. They can just understand the concept. The concept, combined with other concepts, has mathematical utility. But it has no existence, neither real or imagined.

What you think other people might or might not be able to imagine has exactly no bearing on their actual abilities.

Your disbelief is not evidence for anything - not for the non-existence of infinities, nor the inability of others to imagine them, nor of anything else.

Surely you have met people who are too stupid to grasp some concept that you are perfectly comfortable and familiar with? What makes you think that you cannot be that person to someone else?

Reality doesn't care what you cannot believe. Nor does anyone else.

This is not a response to anything.

It is a meaningless rant.

Good luck.

 

[Kharakov]

Things don't start to exist without something causing them, therefore something has always existed, because things start to exist.

Just thought of first cause ......... I wonder what effect lead to it?

Greeks has some sort of primordial kaos- all possibilities existed, sort of like the universal wave function of QM.

There might have been many possible first causes, we're just following the path through the primordial chaos dictated by one of them that involved the original neutron becoming an electron and a proton.... with light being all like "I'm copying that shit" and fucking everything up.

 

[beero1000]

It's extremely simple if you're not a robot, and still fun to argue against robots about if you aren't as well, but possibly... distracting?

Things don't start to exist without something causing them, therefore something has always existed, because things start to exist.

You are using observed data (things existing) to make a conclusion.

Logically your conclusion can only go as far as your observed data. No further.

 

[Kharakov]

It's extremely simple if you're not a robot, and still fun to argue against robots about if you aren't as well, but possibly... distracting?

Things don't start to exist without something causing them, therefore something has always existed, because things start to exist.

You are using observed data (things existing) to make a conclusion.

Logically your conclusion can only go as far as your observed data. No further.

Yeah. We observe something existing that changes form over time.

We understand that it is a logical impossibility for nothing to cause something to exist, or to change form, because nothing doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist cannot have an effect on anything that does. It can't cause it to become existent, etc.

Nothing (the complete lack of anything existing) has never existed. If it every did, it would be eternal, because non-existence cannot change- nothing has no properties that exist that could change.

Since nothing has never existed, the conjugate must be true: something has always existed.

 

[bilby]

What you think other people might or might not be able to imagine has exactly no bearing on their actual abilities.

Your disbelief is not evidence for anything - not for the non-existence of infinities, nor the inability of others to imagine them, nor of anything else.

Surely you have met people who are too stupid to grasp some concept that you are perfectly comfortable and familiar with? What makes you think that you cannot be that person to someone else?

Reality doesn't care what you cannot believe. Nor does anyone else.

This is not a response to anything.

Self evidently, it is a direct response to you. Logically, you appear to be declaring either yourself or your arguments to be nothing; While I would certainly tend to agree with that assessment, I rather doubt that it was your intent.

It is a meaningless rant.

Your continuing inability to extract meaning from any post that disagrees with your preconceptions is noted. Again, you are not doing your own image any favours by your admission of your incompetence in this regard; are you sure that you meant to make that admission?

Good luck.

Thanks, but I don't rely on luck - I have reality on my side.

 

[Kharakov]

I have reality on my side.

Ewww.

 

[untermensche]

You are using observed data (things existing) to make a conclusion.

Logically your conclusion can only go as far as your observed data. No further.

Yeah. We observe something existing that changes form over time.

We understand that it is a logical impossibility for nothing to cause something to exist, or to change form, because nothing doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist cannot have an effect on anything that does. It can't cause it to become existent, etc.

Nothing (the complete lack of anything existing) has never existed. If it every did, it would be eternal, because non-existence cannot change- nothing has no properties that exist that could change.

Since nothing has never existed, the conjugate must be true: something has always existed.

You quote me but you don't seem to understand the quote.

There is observed data.

Anything you say about that data can only go as far as the data.

When you run out of data you can say no more.

You cannot make rational claims about data you do not have.

Despite your desires.

 

[untermensche]

This is not a response to anything.

Self evidently, it is a direct response to you. Logically, you appear to be declaring either yourself or your arguments to be nothing; While I would certainly tend to agree with that assessment, I rather doubt that it was your intent.

It is a meaningless rant.

Your continuing inability to extract meaning from any post that disagrees with your preconceptions is noted. Again, you are not doing your own image any favours by your admission of your incompetence in this regard; are you sure that you meant to make that admission?

Good luck.

Thanks, but I don't rely on luck - I have reality on my side.

Empty rant on top of empty rant.

My god you are an ignorant ass.

 

[untermensche]

You are using observed data (things existing) to make a conclusion.

Logically your conclusion can only go as far as your observed data. No further.

Yeah. Seems like a strange idea to you.

Only being about to speak about available data and no more.

Because after speaking about data all you have is imaginary stories.

But some like certain imaginary stories more than other imaginary stories so they claim THEIR stories are the best stories.

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah. We observe something existing that changes form over time.

We understand that it is a logical impossibility for nothing to cause something to exist, or to change form, because nothing doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist cannot have an effect on anything that does. It can't cause it to become existent, etc.

Nothing (the complete lack of anything existing) has never existed. If it every did, it would be eternal, because non-existence cannot change- nothing has no properties that exist that could change.

Since nothing has never existed, the conjugate must be true: something has always existed.

You quote me but you don't seem to understand the quote.

There is observed data.

Anything you say about that data can only go as far as the data.

When you run out of data you can say no more.

You cannot make rational claims about data you do not have.

Despite your desires.

First data is what it is, it is not what is observed. So observing only takes you away from what is to what it seems to be. Working from your subjective plane, observing, you cannot know data. You can only interpret what it seems to suggest, a subjective view. So you making subjective claims about objective data with your desires is pretty pathetic. Subjectively one cannot exclude a possibility due of uncertainty about what data is, like data is continuous.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. We observe something existing that changes form over time.

We understand that it is a logical impossibility for nothing to cause something to exist, or to change form, because nothing doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist cannot have an effect on anything that does. It can't cause it to become existent, etc.

Nothing (the complete lack of anything existing) has never existed. If it every did, it would be eternal, because non-existence cannot change- nothing has no properties that exist that could change.

Since nothing has never existed, the conjugate must be true: something has always existed.

You quote me but you don't seem to understand the quote.

There is observed data. Anything you say about that data can only go as far as the data. When you run out of data you can say no more. You cannot make rational claims about data you do not have.

Ehh, it's impossible for something to arise from nothing. We have that "data" which is a fact. If nothing exists, nothing will persist eternally. Nothing didn't exist- something did, which we can extrapolate from observing that something exists.

From the fact that something exists, we can know that something has always existed.

Despite your desires.

My desire for beautiful women to ply me with substances and witty banter has nothing to do with this thread. My desire for wealth, health, and happiness has little to do with this thread either. Perhaps my desire for other sentients (aware beings) to have a solid understanding of concepts has something to do with this thread.

 

[untermensche]

You quote me but you don't seem to understand the quote.

There is observed data.

Anything you say about that data can only go as far as the data.

When you run out of data you can say no more.

You cannot make rational claims about data you do not have.

Despite your desires.

First data is what it is, it is not what is observed. So observing only takes you away from what is to what it seems to be. Working from your subjective plane, observing, you cannot know data. You can only interpret what it seems to suggest, a subjective view. So you making subjective claims about objective data with your desires is pretty pathetic. Subjectively one cannot exclude a possibility due of uncertainty about what data is, like data is continuous.

It isn't called data unless it is observed.

That's what data is.