What does it mean for something to be "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.

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.

Untermensche, while we're trying to school you in elementary logic, we might as well also introduce you to the logical fallacy known as  argumentum ad nauseam:

An argumentum ad nauseam (also known as an argument by repetition) is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. An ad nauseam argument that can be easily shown to be false leads to the " point refuted a thousand times".

Since you seem unwilling to click on links that might help you understand basic logic, here is the description of "point refuted a thousand times" (PRATT):

A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with.

It is a common phrase on Internet forums — as debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. It's a very common accusation levied at creationists, who are notoriously unimaginative in what they say.[2] Coincidentally, PRATTs can usually be found coming from prats (British English for "idiots").

 

[ryan]

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.

What premises/postulates would you like to use? We need postulates before we can know if something is logical.

 

[fast]

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.

I'm not sure what to call that. It sounds like something I might describe as realistic possibilities. It's the kind of possibilities a Sherlock Holmes might consider. He wouldn't consider the more asinine logical possibilities. The prisoner walked through the wall instead of escaping through an AC duct, not so much.

You need to drop your usage of "logical possibilities" in your endeavor to facilitate meaningful communication. If you persist to say dog when you mean cat, few will grasp what you mean by dogs meow.

 

[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.

Untermensche, while we're trying to school you in elementary logic, we might as well also introduce you to the logical fallacy known as  argumentum ad nauseam:

An argumentum ad nauseam (also known as an argument by repetition) is the logical fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough. An ad nauseam argument that can be easily shown to be false leads to the " point refuted a thousand times".

Since you seem unwilling to click on links that might help you understand basic logic, here is the description of "point refuted a thousand times" (PRATT):

A point refuted a thousand times, commonly abbreviated as PRATT, refers to a point or argument that has literally been refuted so many times that it is not worth bothering with.

It is a common phrase on Internet forums — as debates have a tendency to go in circles. Once people have refuted a point the first thousand times, it's hard for them to muster the motivation to do it again. It's a very common accusation levied at creationists, who are notoriously unimaginative in what they say.[2] Coincidentally, PRATTs can usually be found coming from prats (British English for "idiots").

You're trying to shove stale lifeless nonsense down my throat.

You're not thinking or expressing ideas.

 

[untermensche]

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.

I'm not sure what to call that. It sounds like something I might describe as realistic possibilities. It's the kind of possibilities a Sherlock Holmes might consider. He wouldn't consider the more asinine logical possibilities. The prisoner walked through the wall instead of escaping through an AC duct, not so much.

You need to drop your usage of "logical possibilities" in your endeavor to facilitate meaningful communication. If you persist to say dog when you mean cat, few will grasp what you mean by dogs meow.

There is no logical to claim something can happen that can never happen.

Logic is not a tool in which to find nonsense.

If you are ending up with nonsense you have abandoned logic somewhere.

 

[PyramidHead]

logically possible =/= reasonable to think it is actually physically true

Logical can mean two things:

1. Reasonable, commonsense, within the realm of everyday likelihood, etc.

2. Does not contain a contradiction in terms

Some statements satisfy definition 2, but may or may not satisfy definition 1.

We call these statements 'logically possible' but you can call them anything you want. The point is, such statements exist.

 

[beero1000]

 

[PyramidHead]

"Anything non-obvious is false." I like that, sums up the mindset perfectly.

 

[untermensche]

logically possible =/= reasonable to think it is actually physically true

Says who?

Who is claiming it is logical to say things that can't be true are possible?

I want a name.

 

[ryan]

logically possible =/= reasonable to think it is actually physically true

Says who?

Who is claiming it is logical to say things that can't be true are possible?

I want a name.

Think about it as a two-part process. If I role a die, we assume/postulate equal probability and say that a 6 is possible. But only after the die lands do we know the truth. If it shows a 4 instead of 6, it is false to say it is a 6 even though 6 was possible before.

So,

before: 6 is possible based on equal probability assumption/postulate (1/6 chance).

after: the 6 is not true based on evidence (even here we could assume/postulate that our minds are giving us the correct visual representation of the die, and so on)

 

[untermensche]

Says who?

Who is claiming it is logical to say things that can't be true are possible?

I want a name.

Think about it as a two-part process. If I role a die, we assume/postulate equal probability and say that a 6 is possible. But only after the die lands do we know the truth. If it shows a 4 instead of 6, it is false to say it is a 6 even though 6 was possible before.

So,

before: 6 is possible based on equal probability assumption/postulate (1/6 chance).

after: the 6 is not true based on evidence (even here we could assume/postulate that our minds are giving us the correct visual representation of the die, and so on)

But 6 being possible is a given.

Is it logical to say you will roll an eight with a standard six sided die?

 

[ryan]

Think about it as a two-part process. If I role a die, we assume/postulate equal probability and say that a 6 is possible. But only after the die lands do we know the truth. If it shows a 4 instead of 6, it is false to say it is a 6 even though 6 was possible before.

So,

before: 6 is possible based on equal probability assumption/postulate (1/6 chance).

after: the 6 is not true based on evidence (even here we could assume/postulate that our minds are giving us the correct visual representation of the die, and so on)

But 6 being possible is a given.

Is it logical to say you will roll an eight with a standard six sided die?

No it wouldn't be logical to think that. But we are talking about what is or isn't logical in general. So 8 would just not be possible in general because of the "givens"/postulate. The postulate being each number on the die having a 1/6 chance.

 

[untermensche]

But 6 being possible is a given.

Is it logical to say you will roll an eight with a standard six sided die?

No it wouldn't be logical to think that. But we are talking about what is or isn't logical in general. So 8 would just not be possible in general because of the "givens"/postulate. The postulate being each number on the die having a 1/6 chance.

In other words it isn't logical because it can't happen.

It is irrational to claim that things that can't happen are logical possibilities.

So if you don't know if it is possible for something to happen you can't rationally claim it is a logical possibility.

If you don't know that time can go on without end you can't claim it is a logical possibility.

A claim that time can go on without end may be just like a claim that eight will show up with the roll of a standard six sided die.

 

[ryan]

No it wouldn't be logical to think that. But we are talking about what is or isn't logical in general. So 8 would just not be possible in general because of the "givens"/postulate. The postulate being each number on the die having a 1/6 chance.

A claim that time can go on without end may be just like a claim that eight will show up with the roll of a standard six sided die.

The postulate that I gave leaves 8 out of possibilities. What postulate/s do you propose that makes infinity impossible?

 

[fast]

In other words it isn't logical because it can't happen.

It is irrational to claim that things that can't happen are logical possibilities.

When you say "can't," that's a contraction of the two words, "can" and "not."

There is a difference between "cannot" and "can not." The former is what you're talking about whereas the latter is what you're saying.

"Cannot" is about ability.
"Can not" is about choice.

Either you can or you cannot breath under water. In other words, you have the ability to or you do not have the ability to breath under water. (Can vs cannot)

You can turn yourself in or you can not turn yourself in; the choice is yours, but it comes with consequences. (Can vs can not)

Given that, I'm changing what you said, which is:

It is irrational to claim that things that can't happen are logical possibilities.

To what you mean which is:

It is irrational to claim that things that [cannot] happen are logical possibilities.

One problem with your assertion is that ability is irrelevant. Your contrived use of "logical" is of your own making.

 

[untermensche]

A claim that time can go on without end may be just like a claim that eight will show up with the roll of a standard six sided die.

The postulate that I gave leaves 8 out of possibilities. What postulate/s do you propose that makes infinity impossible?

What postulates about time do you think are possible?

We don't know if time has an eight. If it is infinite.

So we can't possibly know if time can roll one.

If we can't possibly know if something is possible it is not logical to say it is.

 

[untermensche]

In other words it isn't logical because it can't happen.

It is irrational to claim that things that can't happen are logical possibilities.

When you say "can't," that's a contraction of the two words, "can" and "not."

There is a difference between "cannot" and "can not." The former is what you're talking about whereas the latter is what you're saying.

"Cannot" is about ability.
"Can not" is about choice.

Either you can or you cannot breath under water. In other words, you have the ability to or you do not have the ability to breath under water. (Can vs cannot)

You can turn yourself in or you can not turn yourself in; the choice is yours, but it comes with consequences. (Can vs can not)

Given that, I'm changing what you said, which is:

It is irrational to claim that things that can't happen are logical possibilities.

To what you mean which is:

It is irrational to claim that things that [cannot] happen are logical possibilities.

One problem with your assertion is that ability is irrelevant. Your contrived use of "logical" is of your own making.

There is nothing here to discuss except your claim that I use the word "logical" wrong.

I disagree.

Logic is not a tool to lead to foolishness. It is what we use to separate foolishness from things that are serious.

If you end up with foolishness, like saying things that are impossible are possible, then you are not using any kind of logic.

 

[ryan]

The postulate that I gave leaves 8 out of possibilities. What postulate/s do you propose that makes infinity impossible?

What postulates about time do you think are possible?
We don't know if time has an eight. If it is infinite.

So we can't possibly know if time can roll one.

If we can't possibly know if something is possible it is not logical to say it is.

Since we are talking about logic, all I have to do is assume/postulate:

1) for every second that has passed one second passed before it.

That's it; that's a logical possibility. This implies that an infinite number of seconds have passed before any second.

 

[untermensche]

What postulates about time do you think are possible?
We don't know if time has an eight. If it is infinite.

So we can't possibly know if time can roll one.

If we can't possibly know if something is possible it is not logical to say it is.

Since we are talking about logic, all I have to do is assume/postulate:

1) for every second that has passed one second passed before it.

That's it; that's a logical possibility. This implies that an infinite number of seconds have passed before any second.

You can't talk about "every second that has passed".

You know very little about that set.

Not nearly enough to make absolute claims about it.

 

[ryan]

What postulates about time do you think are possible?
We don't know if time has an eight. If it is infinite.

So we can't possibly know if time can roll one.

If we can't possibly know if something is possible it is not logical to say it is.

Since we are talking about logic, all I have to do is assume/postulate:

1) for every second that has passed one second passed before it.

That's it; that's a logical possibility. This implies that an infinite number of seconds have passed before any second.

You can't talk about "every second that has passed".

You know very little about that set.

Not nearly enough to make absolute claims about it.

Okay, so you do not like my premise, but infinity is still logically possibly using it. I can put practically the same postulate in more specific terms.

1) There have always been quantum fluctuations.

This is not scientifically supported, but it doesn't need to be scientific to be logically possible.