Poll: Is Anything Possible?
- Thread starter Shankity Stick
- Start date
Recommended Videos
"Everything is what it is, and cannot be what it is not."Shankity Stick said:
---
"Logic does not exist - therefore logic would be disproven/not exist."
No logic, therefore no logic.
X, therefore X. Not X, therefore Y. (for every Y =/= X)
A fundamental logical absolute.
Congratulations, you have proven logic, again. It works, even where it supposedly does not exist!
EDIT: quick writing, left out a word. Fixed.
Logic is a product of the sentient mind - in a hypothetical universe with no life, no such sentience exists. Ergo, no logic exists in that universe. Ergo, logic can be disproved in that universe, but only using the thought processes of another universe entirely.SakSak said:
If you refuse to count that, then who's to say that there isn't some other universe that has entities with some inconceivable (to us) thought processes that are capable of entirely disproving logic without actually engaging in logic?
Your argument is limited by the fact that it relies on the human mind and upon language - an entity not limited in such a way could do things that you couldn't even imagine imagining.
There are things we see as impossible, or imaginary; these impossible, imaginary things have their own impossibilities, and our minds can't begin to understand what they are.
Hopefully that makes sense at least one of the times I've tried to say it, but describing what's possible beyond our notions of impossibility is difficult when limited by said notions of impossibility.
We have tried. People get paid to try to break them. At some point someone said "well, I wonder what happens when we increase the gravity to insane levels (time passes) well that behaved exactly like we expected. Make it a law but make a footnote to see relativity". The laws state given these exact circumstances this will always be the result. That is all the laws really state. What you are proposing is "The laws state given these exact circumstances this will always be the result...well sometimes. Other times something unpredictable happens".cabooze said:
I've had this counterargument ever since I was a small child, "yeah, well can my balls fall off and turn into Godzilla?"
What is to explain? I will apologize if I confused you by saying "dimension" up there. I did mean "universes". I will thank you for this video. I have been searching this for quite a while.Ildecia said:
you were a creepy little child. They probably could given the right circumstances which could be found given enough time in at least one universes.skitzo van said:
I have a better one!SakSak said:
Think of a 2D being. It can move forwards and backwards, left and right. But not only does it not know of up and down, it cannot begin to understand them. Similarly, we live in 3D, but we couldn't begin to work out where a 4th (spatial) dimension would fit in.
Then, think of a rabbit. It has no logic available to it beyond "Eat grass, run from foxes". We have a full logical mindset (we think). Who's to say that other beings, in another universe, don't have access to a further developed mind, one somehow not dependent on logic? And who's to say there's not something beyond them, and beyond them? It's possible that the only living creatures in some universe, somewhere, have a mindset so bizarrely different to ours that logic does not exist there, thus is disproven in that universe without the use of logic! (there, anyway)
It all depends on how you define a person/dimension copies. You say that a person and a dinension copie are different because (from what I can surmise from our conversations) they go through different expirences. I say that I and my hypothetical dimension copies are the same person due to the fact that we were born to the same mother who was born to the same mother as my mother was, and she was etc. etc. etc. This defenicion of existence is not a defenicion but an opinion. I have mine and you have yours and neither of us can change each others mind, so I have to drop this dicusion if you will. Also I saw what you did with the gender swap. But I could give a f**k. Tah tah.crudus said:You just straight up ignored half of my argument. Whatever I will just restate it(and make it more blatant and long so you don't miss it again!Shankity Stick said:). You are a product of your DNA and environment. Every little detail matters. You can remove something said to you once and come out completely different. There are two things that makes "you" you. Your physical being and what is private to the rest of the world. It is your thoughts, emotions, reactions to stimuli, etc. Change the environment (lets say in a different universe where only one thing is different in your(her) life) that you(she) will be different because of it. Her thoughts will change slightly, her reactions will change slightly, etc. Regardless of that, your thoughts are independent of hers, your feelings are independent of hers, etc. Thus you cannot be the same person. You may look similarly, act similarly, think similarly(etc), but you are not the same. The change between your lives doesn't need to be that great. It could be as small as the wording of one thought once. That is enough to prove that your thoughts are not dependent on one another and you are thus two different people.
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.Bloodstain said:
No, not even if we avoid saying something that's impossible. Some things just can't happen regardless of time or energy. I use to think yes, but I've began to look at it in a new way. If I say something's impossible and you disprove it it'll only take my ten seconds to screw you up until we reach a point where you're stumped. In the chance that we both know the laws of everything then we could easily make something impossible.
I contest this.J03bot said:
Let us begin: what is logic?
I propose we use the following definition: "the quality of being justifiable by reason."
Do you accept this definition as a starting point?
Also:
This would still require that the thinking entity, and thus the disproof, be done in a universe where logic exists even by your own admission.
Thereby, limiting the disproof to not using logic during it, or adding the qualifier
"In a universe without logic, the rules of logic do not apply", which itself is a practice of logic.
Therefore, the entity cannot disprove logic, without ending in a self-referencing argument, no matter if a universe void of logic did exist somewhere.
And since you seemed to hold that logic is the product of a sentient mind, would it therefore not follow that as soon as this hypothetical entity enters the hypothetical universe where no logic used to exist, he 'brings' it with his own thoughts and mind. Thereby, making it impossible to excercise a disproval of logic within a universe that contains no logic.
"that there isn't some other universe that has entities with some inconceivable (to us) thought processes that are capable of entirely disproving logic without actually engaging in logic?"
Because the connectivity of thought to concept, or proof or argument to concept itself requires logic by its very nature. To claim otherwise, is to contest the very concept of thought.
And if it is sufficiently different from thought, is it thought any longer?
Everything is what it is, and cannot be what it is not.
No, but rather relies upon concepts. I am merely using language to communicate those concepts to you.
And yet, if they have thought, they apply logic. Because thought is a consistent, logical link between a concept they are thinking off, and whatever passes as language for them.
So your (hypothetical) brothers and sisters are the same people as you? If you don't care then why do you keep bring it up? Although for the record my definition of "same person" is someone who shares the same thoughts, reactions, feelings as you do. If any one little detail(even intensity) is off then two people are not the same.Shankity Stick said:
With that I will take my victory and be off[footnote]I claimed I couldn't prove something to you and I didn't. It was Catch 22. Either you admitted I was right about the physics thing, or you argued existential philosophy and proved me right. QED, Not everything is possible[/footnote].
It's not possible for an observer to know if Schrödinger's cat is alive or dead until the box is opened.
With the box being defined as a box which cuts all contact with the outside world, and the observer is outside of the box.
Everybody here knows the thought experiment, I won't waste my time typing it out.
With the box being defined as a box which cuts all contact with the outside world, and the observer is outside of the box.
Everybody here knows the thought experiment, I won't waste my time typing it out.
