Poll: Is Anything Possible?

[rsvp42]

Completely disproving isn't necessary. Just like you can't truly prove something, except in math. But we can reach reasonable conclusions based on study and observation. You know, science and all that. If you're looking to wax philosophically about alternate realities and brains in jars, feel free to continue, but that's not really what science concerns itself with. At least, not until it starts to affect the observable world. It's all about making sense of what we've got in front of us. Don't sweat the crazy hypotheticals too much.

Also, the responsibility is on the prover, not the disprover.

 

[Mad World]

Yes, but only with God.

 

[Lukeje]

Has the thread really reached this length without mention of Gödel's incompleteness theorem? It is impossible for a mathematical system to be both complete and self-consistent.

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

While you could change the definition of a circle you don't change what it is intrinsically. An inch, meter, and foot are all arbitrarily chosen (the meter being quite accurate for what they were shooting for). Nothing says a foot has to be this long. Unfortunately, language is getting in the way to what I want to explain. A circle is always a circle even if you change its name or definition. It is always an equal distance from a point on a 2-dimensional plane. If you call it a square, change the definition, whatever. It will still be what it is intrinsically. "A rose by any other name will still smell just as sweet"(William Shakespeare) to put it elegantly. You can change the name but the concept still exists.

Actually language did get in the way. A circle can define both the Circumference (all points in a plane, which by definition is 2-dimensional, at same distance the same from the centre) or the entire disk within the circunference. So a circle can indead contain corners, just not in its limit. The circunference on the other side can't if we keep the same no changing definition policy. On a side note, the prevalent definition in english for circle is the first, but its not the prevalent definition in other languages I know (french, spanish and portuguese), as it is the geometrical place defined by points in a plane of at same or inferior distance from a point denominated center. And the curved line delimiting it its always a circumference. So somebody already changed the definition, many centuries ago I believe.

 

[Zacharine]

Logic is not an application of concepts but a means of getting there.

So logic is not a method of thought, but a method to achieve a method of thought? Curious...

It doesn't even really exist it is merely the interaction of electrical and chemical signals in your brain in a manner that leads to a conclusion based off perceived facts.

Would you in similar vein argue that the concept of number 0 does not exist as anything but electrical and chimecal signals in my brain? Or the concept of number 1, something being singular and clearly definably different from those around it?

Or the concept that a rock is a not river, but inherently observably different?

I am not talking of the observation, I am talking of the basis for the observation: the concept of things being what they are, and not what they are not.

If a person had some kind of physical deformity within their brain that prevented them from understanding the concept of zero

It wouldn't prevent anyone else from understanding the concept. It would have no effect on the concept itself. Just as Einsteins special theory of relativity: when it was proposed, not many people could understand the concept of time and space being invariably tied, but that did not make the concept disappear or somehow mutate.

or if they had simply never heard of the concept of zero (Like say... all of Europe from the beginning of time up until the Reconquista) then no zero would not exist for those individuals.

And yet the concept of zero would exist. The symbol, the numerical representation, is not the concept but a representation of the concept. Just as a circle drawn on a paper is not actually a circle (miniscule angles at the very least on atomic level), but a representation of the concept of circle.

A person draws their conclusions from what they perceive and concepts are no different.

And yet that in and off itself is made by using the concept of logic, wheater one is aware of it or not.

What perception, or what conclusion drawn from a perception, is logic dependand upon?

Not all concepts are tied to observations. Logic is the inherent quality of something being justifiable by reason. This quality is an intrinsic property and is not dependand upon there being an observer.

Logic is not a physical entity or even a concept at all. Logic doesn't even exist where there is no species intelligent enough to apply such thought.

So you too claim that logic stops working as soon as no thinking life-forms are present? And that thus the concept of logic disappears as soon as there is no life?

I strongly contest this.

Because if this were the case, logic should not work in the orbit of Mars, because there are no thinking individuals there. Yet we know logic works, because we've sent probes there, probes whos' programming depend upon 1+1 equalling two.

If logic does not mysteriously disappear between Earth and Mars, why should it disappear between Milky Way and Andromeda? Between our universe, and whatever hypothetical universe might be around it?

(AKA most of the universe) Quantum Physics affects the entirety of the universe while logic does not.

...
...

seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay sorry. Then tell me, how did we ever land probes on Mars, if logic does not work everywhere, and the concept is purely and ultimately tied to a thinking mind?

I must thank you though, that was the funniest thing I've read in a week!

What is it like to be my intellectual *****?

 

[Hawgh]

Well, yes and no. It's tough to say what's possible in the natural universe, seeing as there's probably a good slab of natural laws that hasn't been entirely nailed down yet.
Withing fixed logical systems, some things are never going to happen. For example: 2+2=42 is never going to happen.

 

[Velvo]

I Don't Exist. Simple fact of the Universe. But it's possible for me to exist, and so, quantumly, I do. And, since I existed quantumly, once I was observed, I became.

What made it possible for you to exist? What made existence? Is that a silly question? Did it ever begin? What observed you? Circular logic simply moves the problem, it does not solve it.

The possibility of existence of a defined form means it can exist. It's similar to showing an animal a mirror--the animal might exist (for sake of argument, it does), and to it, it's twin in the mirror also exists, but only when it is in front of the mirror. Therefore, when the animal is looking in the mirror (an idea observing itself, in metaphorical terms), both the dog and it's reflection exist. In this case, I was observed by my peers, colleagues, parents, random passersby, and my Bill collectors. By their adamant belief in my existence (made apparent by their acknowledging my presence as the formative bits of existence), I exist.

So matter/energy, by interacting with matter/energy, causes itself to be? Or is your theory of existence somehow more romanticized? Observation is simply detection. Everything in the universe is, however slightly, detected by everything else. That's simply part of the quantum mechanics of our universe, it has no bearing on what caused this universe, or any universe, to be. Perhaps it indicates something innate about how existence works, but there's nothing to prove that.

About your dog in the mirror analogy, I think it's a bit flawed. I mean, the reflection doesn't really represent the reality. There is no matter, there, just light. It's a simulacrum brought on by the complex way mirrors interact with light, just as our observations are representations of our surroundings brought on by our complex nervous system. Course, you could be meaning it in a even more esoteric and romanticized manner. I dunno.

My point was simply that the "I" with which we are all so dreadfully familiar is the only thing we can be certain of actually existing. Because we exist, whether or not we are brains in jars, we can be certain that something exists. Because something exists, we can also be certain that nothingness does not exist, because existence and non-existence cannot coexist. Nonexistence being an imaginable circumstance, we can suppose that not everything is possible, nonexistence being a possibility. Unless something can negate the time at which existence existed, seeing as time and cause and effect are just universal things, not tied to such esoteric ideas.

 

[Cowabungaa]

(AKA most of the universe) Quantum Physics affects the entirety of the universe while logic does not.

...
...

seriously?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay sorry. Then tell me, how did we ever land probes on Mars, if logic does not work everywhere, and the concept is purely and ultimately tied to a thinking mind?

I must thank you though, that was the funniest thing I've read in a week!

I think what he means is that logic is something that only exists in our brains, unlike quantum physics. But even then he's wrong as we, and thus our minds, can influence the universe. Not on a massive scale like quantum physics, but still. Indeed, without logic existing in our minds there would probably be no probes on Mars.

 

[Rakkana]

I'd say most. but not all.

 

[TimeLord]

Can you walk through a brick wall? Then anything is not possible

[sup]Except using appropriate phase-shifting tech[/sup]

 

[samfergo]

doing a barrel roll is possible....

 

[Vitor Goncalves]

What does speed have to do with lenght in this case?! Relativity is an ilusion and leads to measurement errors of time and space, but the real/absolute time and space keep the same.

But as Einstein showed, space and time are not absolute. Only the speed of light is. Before Einstein came, we collectively believed that time is absolute and Einstein made a mockery of it.

Is just that because the position of the observers distorts their reading of reality.

But since all speeds are relative to eachother, who can say what the objective reality is? I measure something, someone else moving at .4c measures something else, who would arbitate as to which one of us is wrong or right?

No-one, because as long as we made our measurements stringently, we are both right.

You speak of time and space as objective absolutes.


Time and space as measured by you, or as measured by the person who doesn't move at 107 000 km/h in relation to the sun.

And because light doesn't travel instantly from point A to any other giving point, neither are we standing still in the universe, our reality, including our measurements, are always distorted.

And because of this, how can we say a foot is 12 inches and never ever anything else?

Well because we ignored one thing, the frame. When you pick up a 1 foot long object and a ruler all the 3 elements of the equation are framed. Therefore they remain in the same position on the Minkowski space (4 dimensional, including time). And because the distance between the 3 is so small, its relativity impact is irrelevant or at least makes impossible for such error like 1/12 (8.3333333%) to occur. Probably something more on the 0.0000000000000000001%. Cant determine it but guess using the right formula you can find it.

The problem is measuring large objects in space, and that's where relativity issue came from (and not with Einstein, but first person to mention it that I am aware was Galileo). When you try to measure a celestial body you can't frame all the elements of the equation, either just you and your measuring tool (the telescope) or one of the particular bodies. That's why you need to include other better known celestial bodies as triangulation sources. And you can frame relatively if for example you try to measure something within our galaxy, as you can ignore the movement of the galaxy drifting through the universe. But not the movement of the objects within the galaxy. And if your measurement efforts jump to the closest galaxy then you can't frame it at all. Theory of relativity+Lorentz transformation (the theory that determines the distortional universe one sees in opposition to the real shape of the universe) and their formulas using the Minkowski and its a way to overcome the error and give the real figures (not 100& accurate but much more then using the Newton laws)
Worse thou when measuring black holes, as you know. The way they distortion light makes it impossible to make acceptable measures even considering relativity. For a start one can't even determine what kind of distortion is really occuring, can either be a slow down of light while moving away from the blackhole, or a change on its trajectory while passing tangentially to the black hole (probably some stars you see close to a black hole are actually behind it and not "next to" it), the whole light supposed to reach us is absorbed by the black hole (there might be stars there you can't see) or even in case there is no light speed limit and we just were not able to create the conditions to make it cross the limit, and the black hole gravity is enough to speed it up.

 

[kiwisushi]

I can tell you one thing that is currently impossible, humans creating a rip in space-time because the quantity of matter-energy is far higher than anything we can output, and the sun for that matter. It may not be impossible forever, but currently it is.

 

[MurderousToaster]

A digon, changing the past, Santa Claus, uhmmm.. me giving a shit about alt dimensions...
Come on you can't use that as a argument for anything being possible because there is no way to prove it

But there is also no way to disprove it.

The onus of proof is one proving the idea, not disproving it. For example, I make the conjecture that I ride dinosaurs around only when people are not observing me during which time I also shoot lasers at cowboys.

Now just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's true.

Huh, I was trying to respond to you quoting me, but it appears to have been gone. Did you misinterpret me as trying to prove it was possible, and respond with proof that it was impossible?

 

[MurderousToaster]

Just, here, skip the shit.

Provide me with mathematical proof that it is possible to divide by zero.

Again, you made the statement. The burden of proof is on you. Sadly you have missed the point entirely of this. I was trying to get you to back up your statements instead of restating your premise, shutting your ears and declaring victory, or relying on shaky arguments. I would have accepted a copy+paste from any site on the web, even a link would have been sufficient. Just so you know, this is the answer: There exists no such element x in Real numbers such that x^(-1) is the multiplicative inverse of 0 yielding the multiplicative identity element of 1. I am no math major but what we call zero seems to be pretty universal. I would doubt we could find a universe where this proof doesn't hold true. I can be wrong though.

If you just say something unconnected again, I'll just not respond at all.

And, as a side note, in your p.s you appear to have misread me. Here's what I said:
That's just telling the calculator to provide a set response rather than fulfilling the actual sum.

That is all computers(which a calculator is) do though. They provide a set response set by the programmer. That error you see on a calculator is a set response put in by the programmer.

If your computers didn't perform the calculations and sums, they would not work. That is fairly obvious. You think someone went through every mathematical possibility, programming the correct answers? That would be ridiculous. They'd still be working on the first calculator now.

Whatever. I give up with you. You're flat-out refusing to prove that dividing by zero is possible until I, I dunno, go into the past and ask the first person who discovered you can't do as as to why.

As a side note, it is you that is just "shutting your ears and declaring victory". You're just saying "Give me proof!" when it is a widely-known fact that you cannot divide by zero.

Whatever. I'll just copy-paste from Wikipedia, since you seem to feel that you don't want to actually respond until I provide something.

In mathematics, a division is called a division by zero if the divisor is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a / 0 where a is the dividend. Whether this expression can be assigned a well-defined value depends upon the mathematical setting. In ordinary (real number) arithmetic, the expression has no meaning.

Also, someone provided this which helps my point:

"Assume you can divide by zero.
0 x a =0 and 0 x b =0 where a=/= b

0=0
0 x a = 0 x b taking out a common factor of zero
a=b which contradicts the original statement a=/=b hence you can not divide by zero."

Happy now? If you just respond with "GIVE PROOF!" again, I'll just sort of give up on my slight sliver of hope of you ever responding and actually disproving it.

And, the fact is, I don't want to win. If you can disprove it, go ahead and do so. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

 

[Smallells]

Argueing against your point is thus impossible

 

[Bloodstain]

36 for, 36 against. Wow.

Personally, I think anything is possible.

Since the universe is infinite, everything that has ever been thought must exist somewhere. Provided that the universe actually *is* infinite, which is yet to be proven.

Wrong. There is not, for instance, a purple hippopotamus in my bedroom at this point. It is imaginable, but it is not happening. By specifying where and when things happen (my bedroom, right now), you can put limits on things.

Then again, there could be a place resembling the earth, including you and your room, where purple hippopotamus actually could be

I guess the statement "Anything is possible" is far too general...

36 for, 36 against. Wow.

Personally, I think anything is possible.

Since the universe is infinite, everything that has ever been thought must exist somewhere. Provided that the universe actually *is* infinite, which is yet to be proven.

Surely not. Just because infinity is a factor it doesn't mean anything can happen. If I flip a coin an infinite amount of times I could land a heads every time. Just because I've flipped it an infinite amount of times doesn't mean I have to get tails at some point. it is highly likely, but not definite.

You do have a point there. Please replace "must exist" with "is highly likely to exist".

EDIT: I guess I should stop posting in threads about possibility and the universe right before going to sleep.

 

[jigilojoe]

Someone actually laughing at a film by the guys that make the 'Scary/Epic/Adventure Movies'