|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2005 : 10:25:17 [Permalink]
|
Ricky,
Some things are impossible and I prefer to masturbate in privet...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 10:29:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I thought we were all into the falsafiability gig, thus making nothing impossible.
The idea of falsifiability does in no way make "nothing impossible".
Especially within the realm of deductive logic.
(edit to add an example, silly, but using small numbers so the point gets accross easier)
You have 11 people who all have some hair on their head.
The maximum possible number of hairs on any given head is 10.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE that all 11 people have a different number of hairs on their head.
You can easily extend this out to be more realistic. Substitute 5billion for the number of people, and something closer to the actual possible number of hairs that can be on any head (think I read someplace it was around 5 million, so to be safe lets use 10 million)
You have 4.5 billion people with some hair on their head (taking out half a billion to account for the bald people, a generous estimation I think)
The maximum possible number of hairs on a human head is 10 million.
Therefore it is IMPOSSIBLE that all 4.5 billion people have a different number of hairs on their head.
Of course, the truth of the conclusion depends on the truth of the premises.
However, even if we change the value for the maximum possible number of hairs to 4.4 billion, the conclusion for this particular statement would be true.
Now. If we can demonstrate that ONE thing is impossible, we have demonstrated the false character of the conclusion "nothing is impossible".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 02/07/2005 10:42:58 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 11:20:12 [Permalink]
|
Well we dont seem to be getting anywhere with this, half of us are just ignoring the god potential, while I wish everyone would ignore it in general, you just cannot do so in an impossibility arguement.
No one here is saying that EFFV is possible with what we know of the universe and physical properties, some of us are just trying to point out the possibility of extra-unversal influance and the others are pretending that issue doesnt exist. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 11:39:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
<snip>
Now. If we can demonstrate that ONE thing is impossible, we have demonstrated the false character of the conclusion "nothing is impossible".
True... but you have not demostrated that the following statement is false,
"Nothing, that is not logically contradictory, is impossible."
Also, some of the consequences of quantum theory seem to do extreme violence to commensensical notions of logic. So either some popular interpretations of quantum mechanics are in error, or some aspects of logic are not applicable to the quantum world.
Many things that seem impossible, but are not expressly forbidden by quantum theory, may actually not be absolutely impossible, but merely massively improbable.
How improbable does something have to be before it is impossible? |
| Edited by - dv82matt on 02/07/2005 11:41:04 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 11:44:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
No one here is saying that EFFV is possible with what we know of the universe and physical properties, some of us are just trying to point out the possibility of extra-unversal influance and the others are pretending that issue doesnt exist.
For some topics, like hairs on heads, the issue is irrelevant.
Taking Dude's example farther, the God hypothesis (and extra universes) does not affect this statement: "Since there are 12 months in a year - per a typical and wide-spread human calendar - and there are 6 billion humans, it is impossible for every human to have been born in a unique calendar month."
If you're going to suggest that God might come along and change things so that there are over six billion months a year (on the calendar on my wall, even), that's fine, but then science is a worthless enterprise, and nothing is 'fact'. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 12:56:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Taking Dude's example farther, the God hypothesis (and extra universes) does not affect this statement: "Since there are 12 months in a year - per a typical and wide-spread human calendar - and there are 6 billion humans, it is impossible for every human to have been born in a unique calendar month."
Yes, I agree, it is a logical contradiction and therefore impossible.
quote:
If you're going to suggest that God might come along and change things so that there are over six billion months a year (on the calendar on my wall, even), that's fine,
Well if God exists then I don't suppose that there is any reason to assume that he would be constrained by logic.
quote:
but then science is a worthless enterprise, and nothing is 'fact'.
I don't think I agree with this. It would depend on the 'nature' of 'God'. If 'God' had a kind of 'hands off' policy then science would only be worthless during those instances where 'God' was actively interfering.
But I agree that invoking 'God' is a bit beside the point. It's probably better to limit ourselves to possibilities that are ameanable to investigation.
Could God create a rock so massive that he himself could not lift it? Either way, something is impossible. Unless you try to weasel out of it with some sort of quantum wave function combining possible and impossible states. Or something like that. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 13:38:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
Yes, I agree, it is a logical contradiction and therefore impossible.
I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that everything which can be agreed upon as being impossible will be a logical contradiction at some level. After all, it isn't at all logical to assume that I've somehow gained the ability to leap 1,000 meters into the air, either.quote:
Well if God exists then I don't suppose that there is any reason to assume that he would be constrained by logic.
That's half my point...quote:
I don't think I agree with this. It would depend on the 'nature' of 'God'. If 'God' had a kind of 'hands off' policy then science would only be worthless during those instances where 'God' was actively interfering.
And the other half posits that God is capable of doing whatever he/she/it feels with our "reality," whenever he/she/it feels like it. Just because God hasn't messed with a certain field (to our knowledge) doesn't mean that God won't change it tomorrow.
And that high level uncertainty suggests (to me) that there are much more worthwhile things to do than try to learn anything about "the natural world" at all, 'cause it wouldn't be "natural" anymore. I mean, every statement of fact would come with an implied disclaimer/prayer: "acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s (so long as God leaves it that way)."
Right now, the only implied "disclaimer" on the example statement is "to the best of our ability to measure." That's a much lower level of uncertainty, and one I'm comfortable with.quote:
Could God create a rock so massive that he himself could not lift it? Either way, something is impossible. Unless you try to weasel out of it with some sort of quantum wave function combining possible and impossible states. Or something like that.
Too easy: God could simply change the meaning of our word 'massive' to 'purple', and of 'lift' to 'eat', and thus make the question simply non-sensical, and not implying any logical contradictions whatsoever. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 13:40:11 [Permalink]
|
Now that thats cleared up lets remove the extra-universal influances from the discussion as we can agree that nothing is impossible if god shows up and starts redecorating.
That said, I believe that string theory holds some water and am willing to go as far as to say that we may be inside another larger dimention or two and those dimentions may infact have different math for their physics. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 14:04:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
That said, I believe that string theory holds some water and am willing to go as far as to say that we may be inside another larger dimention or two and those dimentions may infact have different math for their physics.
Um, no. String theory is a mathematical model of our universe which uses "extra" dimensions to measure some things at Planck length or thereabouts in order to merge gravity with quantum electrodynamics. No finding of String Theory will ever make human rectally originated SUVs (HROSUVs) a possibility in this universe. Nor will it find a way for me to leap 1,000 meters into the air, using the common definitions of the words 'me', 'leap', 'meter', 'into' and 'air'.
You can, of course, argue that those words mean different things in some other universe (or dimension), but then we're not talking about the same thing. And some people would argue that quantum physics' "Many Worlds Interpretation" makes such an issue worthy of discussion, but from a rational point-of-view, they're wrong. Of course, with at least one major physicist telling Discover magazine that he tries to behave well because he thinks that by doing so that more of "him" will also behave well in other universes (which are unmeasurable results of math, and not falsifiable realities), rationality seems to be in short supply. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 18:29:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that everything which can be agreed upon as being impossible will be a logical contradiction at some level. After all, it isn't at all logical to assume that I've somehow gained the ability to leap 1,000 meters into the air, either.
You're probably right. I'm just curious though. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that some things that seem ridiculously impossible are in fact merely massively improbable.
Take your example of leaping 1,000 meters into the air. From the standpoint of quantum mechanics it is not a logical contradiction, it is merely astronamically unlikely. So what I am asking is whether there is a possibility, however small, of you leaping 1,000m or whether it is in fact, as I believe, completely impossible?
quote:
quote:
Well if God exists then I don't suppose that there is any reason to assume that he would be constrained by logic.
That's half my point...
Apologies if I partially missed your point.quote:
And the other half posits that God is capable of doing whatever he/she/it feels with our "reality," whenever he/she/it feels like it. Just because God hasn't messed with a certain field (to our knowledge) doesn't mean that God won't change it tomorrow.
True, but I would submit that it is better to have a partially useful theory than no theory at all. Science does not need to be %100 correct for it to be useful.
quote:
And that high level uncertainty suggests (to me) that there are much more worthwhile things to do than try to learn anything about "the natural world" at all, 'cause it wouldn't be "natural" anymore. I mean, every statement of fact would come with an implied disclaimer/prayer: "acceleration due to gravity at sea level on Earth is 9.8 m/s/s (so long as God leaves it that way)."
Well as I said, I don't think that it would completely invalidate science. But I agree that it would be a disagreeable and unnessecary state of affairs.
quote:
Right now, the only implied "disclaimer" on the example statement is "to the best of our ability to measure." That's a much lower level of uncertainty, and one I'm comfortable with.
I agree with that. Most progress in science is due to increasingly accurate measurements which are then used to verify or falsify theories.quote:
quote:
Could God create a rock so massive that he himself could not lift it? Either way, something is impossible. Unless you try to weasel out of it with some sort of quantum wave function combining possible and impossible states. Or something like that.
Too easy: God could simply change the meaning of our word 'massive' to 'purple', and of 'lift' to 'eat', and thus make the question simply non-sensical, and not implying any logical contradictions whatsoever.
Do I contradict myself? Why yes I see that I do.
It is pointless to attempt a scientific inquiry into the possibility of God's existence. The God hypothesis is not falsifiable and so it is not a properly a part of science.
I am more interested in statements that are not false on their face. Such as some of the apparent absurdities that some interpretations of quantum theory seem to indicate are possible. I have a hard time accepting that it is possible for a mouse to survive on the surface of the sun for a week no matter how high the improbability of it actually happening are. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 18:45:14 [Permalink]
|
Well, look at it this way.
Nothing is impossible.
therefore
It is possible that "something is impossible", because nothing is impossible.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 19:30:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by dv82matt
You're probably right. I'm just curious though. Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that some things that seem ridiculously impossible are in fact merely massively improbable.
Well, it's true that if all of the wave functions of all the particles which make up an empty beer can suddenly all find themselves way off to one end of the bell curve, the can could tip over spontaneously, but the likelihood of such a thing happening is, of course, extraordinarily low (but not as low as a mouse living on the Sun for a week).quote:
Take your example of leaping 1,000 meters into the air. From the standpoint of quantum mechanics it is not a logical contradiction, it is merely astronamically unlikely. So what I am asking is whether there is a possibility, however small, of you leaping 1,000m or whether it is in fact, as I believe, completely impossible?
No, it's completely impossible. Like the beer can or the mouse, I might suddenly find myself 1,000m in the air, whether coincidental to me jumping or not, but if you'll remember from page 2, I stipulated that I be able to land without injury. I also find that quantum mechanics does a poor job on its own of predicting how high my muscles might carry me, which is what's involved in the term 'leap' (in other words, I'm not talking about sudden quantum tunneling of macro objects, I'm talking about leaping). Regular old materials science, biology and Newtonian mechanics do a much better job of telling me that I can't dunk than QM.
Well, here's the thing. Knowing what we know about how muscles and bones function, can a QM modification (or even violation!) occur over the period of some largish number of milliseconds it would take for me to jump in such a way that would leave me with intact muscles? Or would they, through such bizarre happenstance, be turned to jelly, concrete, aardvarks or worse yet, explode?quote:
Apologies if I partially missed your point.
Perhaps my fault. That "That's half my point" line was supposed to sound jovial, not accusative. Sorry.quote:
True, but I would submit that it is better to have a partially useful theory than no theory at all. Science does not need to be %100 correct for it to be useful.
No, but even when it's wrong - these days - it's something we can build upon towards better science. If God could come along and change things, we may find tomorrow that 2+2=3, and pretty much have to start over from scratch. I'd much rather spend my time trying to get laid and/or drunk, were that the case.quote:
It is pointless to attempt a scientific inquiry into the possibility of God's existence. The God hypothesis is not falsifiable and so it is not a properly a part of science.
Hehehehe! You appear to be saying that it's impossible to falsify the God hypothesis.  quote:
I am more interested in statements that are not false on their face. Such as some of the apparent absurdities that some interpretations of quantum theory seem to indicate are possible. I have a hard time accepting that it is possible for a mouse to survive on the surface of the sun for a week no matter how high the improbability of it actually happening are.
I'm not sure one even need dip into QM for the mouse thing. Good 'ol Brownian motion and a ton of raw luck seem to be the only things required. It's that sudden trip to Mars which requires millions of miles of simultaneous quantum tunneling on behalf of quadrillions of particles. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
byhisgrace88
Formerly "creation88"
USA
166 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 21:04:01 [Permalink]
|
| It is IMPOSSIBLE for 1+1 to equal 3. It is IMPOSSIBLE to live without flaw. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the Patriots to lose. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an apple tree to produce oranges. I could go on and on and on and on.... |
Indeed, if we consider the unblushing promises of reward and the staggering nature of the rewards promised in the Gospels, it would seem that Our Lord finds our desire, not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.-- C.S. Lewis |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2005 : 21:41:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, it's true that if all of the wave functions of all the particles which make up an empty beer can suddenly all find themselves way off to one end of the bell curve, the can could tip over spontaneously, but the likelihood of such a thing happening is, of course, extraordinarily low (but not as low as a mouse living on the Sun for a week).
Okay I realize that I'm on thin ice with this, but I would speculate that all of the liquid in the beer can, suddenly and without provocation, piling itself up in one half of the beer can leaving the other half completely empty, is actually impossible and not merely hugely unlikely.quote:
quote:
Take your example of leaping 1,000 meters into the air. From the standpoint of quantum mechanics it is not a logical contradiction, it is merely astronamically unlikely. So what I am asking is whether there is a possibility, however small, of you leaping 1,000m or whether it is in fact, as I believe, completely impossible?
No, it's completely impossible. Like the beer can or the mouse, I might suddenly find myself 1,000m in the air, whether coincidental to me jumping or not, but if you'll remember from page 2, I stipulated that I be able to land without injury. I also find that quantum mechanics does a poor job on its own of predicting how high my muscles might carry me, which is what's involved in the term 'leap' (in other words, I'm not talking about sudden quantum tunneling of macro objects, I'm talking about leaping). Regular old materials science, biology and Newtonian mechanics do a much better job of telling me that I can't dunk than QM.
Point taken. Even if you were to leap and coincidentaly at the same time a massively improbable series of violations of the laws of theorodynamics occurred causing you to soar to a height of 1,000 meters and land safely it would not mean that you had gained the ability to perform such a feat.
quote:
quote:
True, but I would submit that it is better to have a partially useful theory than no theory at all. Science does not need to be %100 correct for it to be useful.
No, but even when it's wrong - these days - it's something we can build upon towards better science. If God could come along and change things, we may find tomorrow that 2+2=3, and pretty much have to start over from scratch. I'd much rather spend my time trying to get laid and/or drunk, were that the case.
I guess I just don't see the remote possibility that there might be a God, and that he might mess with reality, to be a very good reason to abandon science altogether. Although I admit that if he were to scatter the pieces it would invalidate science, until he actually does so science remains useful.
quote:
quote:
It is pointless to attempt a scientific inquiry into the possibility of God's existence. The God hypothesis is not falsifiable and so it is not a properly a part of science.
Hehehehe! You appear to be saying that it's impossible to falsify the God hypothesis.
Yeah, that is basically what I am saying. Kind of ironic eh.quote:
I'm not sure one even need dip into QM for the mouse thing. Good 'ol Brownian motion and a ton of raw luck seem to be the only things required. It's that sudden trip to Mars which requires millions of miles of simultaneous quantum tunneling on behalf of quadrillions of particles.
Doh! Yeah you're right again. As you can see I've been irresponsibly confusing quantum mechanics with therodynamics. Sorry.
But again, would a ton of luck really suffice to keep a mouse alive on the sun for a week. I guess that I find this claim hard to swallow. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2005 : 06:09:43 [Permalink]
|
| Dave you misunderstood me again, 1 I naver said that the suv thing was possible in said higher dimention just that physical constants may be altered. I was trying to remove the SUV discussion altogether. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
