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

[untermensche]

Infinity is not simply a number. It is number plus some other imaginary conception added on, like "without end" or "without beginning".

Trying to find infinity in nature is like trying to find the number "three" in nature. It is not there.

They are both imaginary conceptions that have no real world existence. And there is no reason to think they could have a real world existence.

It's aleph-null. You might as well ask which number 0 is? It's 0.

Not merely numbers. Conceptions on top of the conception of number. Zero is the conception of "without number" or "without value".

All sorts of things are possible that aren't rational statements. It's possible that my cat is dead; but I saw him ten minutes ago, and he seemed fine, so it would be completely irrational for me to state "My cat is dead.".

You're defining "rational" as expressing the truth.

That is "truthful", not "rational".

Is it rational to express the truth? Not always.

Like asking if it is logically possible for something to be real and dimensionless?

Of course that's logically possible.

Then give some logic showing how it is possible.

Not some empty claim about how dimensions are not necessary.

You're embarrassing yourself with your ignorance. Seriously, look up "number" in the dictionary.

This is a discussion board.

I don't feel the least bit embarrassed.

I happen to think you are the ignorant one.

You are the deluded one.

The one that doesn't understand the difference between reality and imaginary concepts.

 

[untermensche]

Is it?

What laws put it there?

Are you seriously asking what laws would enable a teapot to get to Jupiter? You know enough physics to know that our physical laws allow a teapot to get to Jupiter's orbit.

Not what laws would allow it.

How did it get there? What put it there?

If you can give a reasonable way it could have gotten there then it would be logical to think it possible.

But if all you have are a bunch of imaginary events that are unlikely I question the rationality of the claim.

 

[untermensche]

I asked: If a human can jump 1 foot high is it logically possible they can jump 100?

And you answered:

Absolutely.

You clearly say it is logically possible for some event to take place.

If it is logically possible it must be physically possible as well.

It is not logic to say things are possible if they are not physically possible.

If we assume that gravity suddenly weakens to the point where a man can jump 100 feet or that the man is standing on a celestial body with weak gravity...

I don't see this as a reasonable assumption.

Appeal to things that have never happened before and have no reason to occur is not a reasonable assumption.

 

[ryan]

Are you seriously asking what laws would enable a teapot to get to Jupiter? You know enough physics to know that our physical laws allow a teapot to get to Jupiter's orbit.

Not what laws would allow it.

How did it get there? What put it there?

If you can give a reasonable way it could have gotten there then it would be logical to think it possible.

But if all you have are a bunch of imaginary events that are unlikely I question the rationality of the claim.

Forces and momentum get it there. How does a spacecraft get to Jupiter? Maybe it hitched a ride? There might be an infinite number of ways the teapot could get there, but all it needs is one possible way.

 

[Copernicus]

I asked: If a human can jump 1 foot high is it logically possible they can jump 100?

And you answered:

Absolutely.

You clearly say it is logically possible for some event to take place.

If it is logically possible it must be physically possible as well.

It is not logic to say things are possible if they are not physically possible.

If we assume that gravity suddenly weakens to the point where a man can jump 100 feet or that the man is standing on a celestial body with weak gravity...

I don't see this as a reasonable assumption.

Appeal to things that have never happened before and have no reason to occur is not a reasonable assumption.

I never said that the assumption was reasonable, only that the conclusion was consistent with the assumption. Have you ever taken a course in logic? You appear not to grasp even the most fundamental principle of how logical arguments work.

 

[untermensche]

I asked: If a human can jump 1 foot high is it logically possible they can jump 100?

And you answered:

Absolutely.

You clearly say it is logically possible for some event to take place.

If it is logically possible it must be physically possible as well.

It is not logic to say things are possible if they are not physically possible.

If we assume that gravity suddenly weakens to the point where a man can jump 100 feet or that the man is standing on a celestial body with weak gravity...

I don't see this as a reasonable assumption.

Appeal to things that have never happened before and have no reason to occur is not a reasonable assumption.

I never said that the assumption was reasonable, only that the conclusion was consistent with the assumption. Have you ever taken a course in logic? You appear not to grasp even the most fundamental principle of how logical arguments work.

Making unreasonable assumptions is not a way to reach reasonable conclusions.

Assuming unreasonable conclusions are true is illogical.

 

[untermensche]

Not what laws would allow it.

How did it get there? What put it there?

If you can give a reasonable way it could have gotten there then it would be logical to think it possible.

But if all you have are a bunch of imaginary events that are unlikely I question the rationality of the claim.

Forces and momentum get it there. How does a spacecraft get to Jupiter? Maybe it hitched a ride? There might be an infinite number of ways the teapot could get there, but all it needs is one possible way.

Forces from where?

What forces?

It hitched a ride? On what? When?

I don't see anything to assume this thing is there.

Assuming things are possibly out there with no evidence to support their existence or reasonable argument to support their existence is not logical.

 

[ryan]

Forces and momentum get it there. How does a spacecraft get to Jupiter? Maybe it hitched a ride? There might be an infinite number of ways the teapot could get there, but all it needs is one possible way.

Forces from where?

What forces?

It hitched a ride? On what? When?

I don't see anything to assume this thing is there.

Assuming things are possibly out there with no evidence to support their existence or reasonable argument to support their existence is not logical.

Edit:

It is physically and logically possible. I don't know what else say.

 

[fast]

Forces from where?

What forces?

It hitched a ride? On what? When?

I don't see anything to assume this thing is there.

Assuming things are possibly out there with no evidence to support their existence or reasonable argument to support their existence is not logical.

Edit:

It is physically and logically possible. I don't know what else say.

His conception of logical possibility seems to require some semblance of plausibility. For instance, had there in fact been an endeavor to get a teapot to orbit Jupiter and (oh say) thousands of teapots had in fact been shuttled in that direction with a gameplan in effect to get them to orbit the planet once they got there, he might consider it as logically possible that a teapot could be orbiting Jupiter, but absent of a potential for such an extreme unlikelihood, considering it as a factual possibility is closer to absurd than logical.

As is often the case, he has an alternative conception of the terms' meaning. We know that the two-worded term "logical possibility" has a very specialized meaning. We can't look up the meaning of "logical" and couple our sense of what the word means with the meaning of the term "possibility" and arrive at the specialized meaning. He's looking at "logical possibility" and seeing two single-worded terms (as opposed to a single two-worded term).

 

[Copernicus]

I asked: If a human can jump 1 foot high is it logically possible they can jump 100?

And you answered:

Absolutely.

You clearly say it is logically possible for some event to take place.

If it is logically possible it must be physically possible as well.

It is not logic to say things are possible if they are not physically possible.

If we assume that gravity suddenly weakens to the point where a man can jump 100 feet or that the man is standing on a celestial body with weak gravity...

I don't see this as a reasonable assumption.

Appeal to things that have never happened before and have no reason to occur is not a reasonable assumption.

I never said that the assumption was reasonable, only that the conclusion was consistent with the assumption. Have you ever taken a course in logic? You appear not to grasp even the most fundamental principle of how logical arguments work.

Making unreasonable assumptions is not a way to reach reasonable conclusions.

Assuming unreasonable conclusions are true is illogical.

Again, you seem to have failed to grasp even the most basic concept of a logical truth. Neither the premises nor the conclusion need by "reasonable" or "plausible". For a conclusion to be logically valid, its truth only needs to be consistent with with the truth of the premises.

Maybe we are going about this from the wrong direction. You asked what it means for something to be "logically possible". Think about what it means for a claim to be "logically impossible". For example, it is logically possible for me to create an object that is too heavy for me to lift, but it is logically impossible for an omnipotent being such as the Christian "omnimax" God to do so. That is, the only thing an omnipotent being cannot do is cancel its omnipotence.

Here's the point. Anything that is not logically impossible is logically possible. Logically possible things do not have to be reasonable, plausible, or probable. They just have to be something that does not give rise to a logical contradiction.

 

[PyramidHead]

I just realized that unter's inability to understand logical possibility may explain his inability to understand thought experiments. He may actually be incapable of imagining a scenario for the sake of argument, because he thinks it has to actually be something likely to happen. This puts a lot of our previous conversations in a new light.

 

[untermensche]

Forces from where?

What forces?

It hitched a ride? On what? When?

I don't see anything to assume this thing is there.

Assuming things are possibly out there with no evidence to support their existence or reasonable argument to support their existence is not logical.

Edit:

It is physically and logically possible. I don't know what else say.

Then you have no valid argument.

Maybe you should change your mind.

 

[untermensche]

Edit:

It is physically and logically possible. I don't know what else say.

His conception of logical possibility seems to require some semblance of plausibility. For instance, had there in fact been an endeavor to get a teapot to orbit Jupiter and (oh say) thousands of teapots had in fact been shuttled in that direction with a gameplan in effect to get them to orbit the planet once they got there, he might consider it as logically possible that a teapot could be orbiting Jupiter, but absent of a potential for such an extreme unlikelihood, considering it as a factual possibility is closer to absurd than logical.

As is often the case, he has an alternative conception of the terms' meaning. We know that the two-worded term "logical possibility" has a very specialized meaning. We can't look up the meaning of "logical" and couple our sense of what the word means with the meaning of the term "possibility" and arrive at the specialized meaning. He's looking at "logical possibility" and seeing two single-worded terms (as opposed to a single two-worded term).

Something that can't happen under current conditions can't logically be said to be possible.

And there is nothing logical about saying conditions might change without any evidence they might.

You will find no alternative definitions in those statements.

 

[fast]

His conception of logical possibility seems to require some semblance of plausibility. For instance, had there in fact been an endeavor to get a teapot to orbit Jupiter and (oh say) thousands of teapots had in fact been shuttled in that direction with a gameplan in effect to get them to orbit the planet once they got there, he might consider it as logically possible that a teapot could be orbiting Jupiter, but absent of a potential for such an extreme unlikelihood, considering it as a factual possibility is closer to absurd than logical.

As is often the case, he has an alternative conception of the terms' meaning. We know that the two-worded term "logical possibility" has a very specialized meaning. We can't look up the meaning of "logical" and couple our sense of what the word means with the meaning of the term "possibility" and arrive at the specialized meaning. He's looking at "logical possibility" and seeing two single-worded terms (as opposed to a single two-worded term).

Something that can't happen under current conditions can't logically be said to be possible.

And there is nothing logical about saying conditions might change without any evidence they might.

You will find no alternative definitions in those statements.

There's an ambiguity at work here. Whatever it is we we mean when we say (oh say) some idea is logical, that's not remotely what we mean when we refer to as a possibility as logical. How did the burglar exit the house? There are four doors and two of them were guarded. One logical possibility is that he turned into smoke and escaped undetected through the crack under the first guarded door. It need not be sensical to be logical. Remember, with logic, anything is possible--save contradictions. If you want to argue that that's not logical, fine, but no one is saying that the possibility is logical--just that it's a logical possibility, and the term "logical possibility" was never meant to confer sensibility upon possibilities. Language, gotta love it.

 

[ryan]

Edit:

It is physically and logically possible. I don't know what else say.

Then you have no valid argument.

Maybe you should change your mind.

Since you insist on calling the possibility of an orbiting teapot around Jupiter illogical, can you please provide the premise/s that are being contradicted? If you trust physics and use its laws/theories as premises, then you will not find a contradiction. So what reasonable premise can be contradicted?

 

[untermensche]

Then you have no valid argument.

Maybe you should change your mind.

Since you insist on calling the possibility of an orbiting teapot around Jupiter illogical, can you please provide the premise/s that are being contradicted? If you trust physics and use its laws/theories as premises, then you will not find a contradiction. So what reasonable premise can be contradicted?

I didn't say it was necessarily illogical. I asked for a way it could have gotten there.

Who put it there?

How did it get there?

You need a logical way for the event to occur before you can say the event is logically possible.

 

[Copernicus]

As I've been telling unter, all of this comes down to his fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument--one of the first things you learn in an introduction to logic. Logical possibilities and impossibilities are basic thought experiments, as Pyramidhead was pointing out. If a claim can be true in some hypothetical world, i.e. be consistent with all other true statements in that imaginary world, then it is a logical possibility. If it cannot be true in any hypothetical world, then it is a logical impossibility. I suspect that unter may have tumbled to all of this by now, but he isn't admitting it, if he has.

So, if you can imagine a world where magic works, and a man knows a magic spell that allows him to jump 100 feet in Earth's gravity, then it is logically possible that a man can jump 100 feet, however implausible such a claim might be in terms of the real world.

 

[untermensche]

As I've been telling unter, all of this comes down to his fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument--one of the first things you learn in an introduction to logic. Logical possibilities and impossibilities are basic thought experiments, as Pyramidhead was pointing out. If a claim can be true in some hypothetical world, i.e. be consistent with all other true statements in that imaginary world, then it is a logical possibility. If it cannot be true in any hypothetical world, then it is a logical impossibility. I suspect that unter may have tumbled to all of this by now, but he isn't admitting it, if he has.

So, if you can imagine a world where magic works, and a man knows a magic spell that allows him to jump 100 feet in Earth's gravity, then it is logically possible that a man can jump 100 feet, however implausible such a claim might be in terms of the real world.

If you can imagine something you think it is now logically possible?

That is absolute nonsense.

If you learned it in some school you should demand your money back.

 

[fast]

As I've been telling unter, all of this comes down to his fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between a valid argument and a sound argument--one of the first things you learn in an introduction to logic. Logical possibilities and impossibilities are basic thought experiments, as Pyramidhead was pointing out. If a claim can be true in some hypothetical world, i.e. be consistent with all other true statements in that imaginary world, then it is a logical possibility. If it cannot be true in any hypothetical world, then it is a logical impossibility. I suspect that unter may have tumbled to all of this by now, but he isn't admitting it, if he has.

So, if you can imagine a world where magic works, and a man knows a magic spell that allows him to jump 100 feet in Earth's gravity, then it is logically possible that a man can jump 100 feet, however implausible such a claim might be in terms of the real world.

If you can imagine something you think it is now logically possible?

That is absolute nonsense.

If you learned it in some school you should demand your money back.

It's the second most extreme sense of possibility there is. Possibility. Not actuality. This sense of possibility is so large in scope that it includes even non-contradictory physical impossibilities. Again, possibilities (!), not actualities. Since we're limiting discussion to possibilities, why be so stringent to denounce imaginative events as illogical? It logically follows that if I could jump to the moon, I would leave Earths orbit. Logically, it follows. Nothing nonsensical about that. It might be absurd to think I could ACTUALLY make the jump, but logic clarifies for us that it logically follows that certain events would happen if other events could.

 

[untermensche]

If you can imagine something you think it is now logically possible?

That is absolute nonsense.

If you learned it in some school you should demand your money back.

It's the second most extreme sense of possibility there is. Possibility. Not actuality. This sense of possibility is so large in scope that it includes even non-contradictory physical impossibilities. Again, possibilities (!), not actualities. Since we're limiting discussion to possibilities, why be so stringent to denounce imaginative events as illogical? It logically follows that if I could jump to the moon, I would leave Earths orbit. Logically, it follows. Nothing nonsensical about that. It might be absurd to think I could ACTUALLY make the jump, but logic clarifies for us that it logically follows that certain events would happen if other events could.

I am talking about logical possibility. Not mere possibility.

A possibility that might actually occur. Something in which it is logical to think it is possible.

I contrast logical to fanciful.

There are logical possibilities and fanciful possibilities.