Poll: Is Anything Possible?

[Shankity Stick]

To all disbelivers, I am finished proving things to you. As long as I am above in the poll, I am happy. That reenforces my faith in humanity because there are more people in this world with an open mind compared to those who don't. That shows that the human race still has a chance since there are people willing to atempt the ilogical and further our knowledge of the universe/s that we live in.

Thus showing your real colours: Truth does not matter to you, only public opinion. You did not seek answers, or challenging conversation, but rather reinforcement to your pre-existing bias.

You also make several non-sequiturs in this last post of yours to this thread. But having seen and witnessed your ability to understand and utilize logic, I am not that surprised.

Have a good day, sir. I count this as an argument won for logic and reason.

I also count this as an inofficial admittance that your position of "everything is possible" is in fact, flawed.

I just realized something, we are arguing 2 different things. You are arguing that logic doesn't not exist, i'm arguing that logic could posibly not exist. Logic does, however, exist but might not exist in some other universe. You can't prove that such a universe doesn't exist, the same way I can't prove that such a universe definitly does exist. I am trying to prove that however. I am proving that a place like that could exist wich is proven simply because there is no prof otherwise.

No, I am arguing that it is impossible to disprove logic, without at the same time using logic. Everything else was tangential, responding to points you or others made.

In fact, ultimately, for my argument it does not matter if logic exists separately from any thinking minds or even of reality, as it would still be impossible to disprove. After all, disproving requires a thinking mind.

If there exists a universe that is void of life and somehow, void of logic, it still would not invalidate my argument, and thus would still counter yours.

Fine, as far as we know, one can't disprove something without logic. That doesn't mean that it isn't posible, symply imposibile for you to invision it in your curent state.

 

[crudus]

*snip*

But the empire state building is on earth only...so...yeah...I'm talkin' on earth,top down to a solid surface,and all the way to sea level.

That is easy. Zip-line to the shore since the bottom of that building isn't at sea level

Like in cartoons, When Characters use clouds as methods of transport

and getting bitten by snake is much worse, considering it gets in the blood stream and nothing has been done to it so it isn't lethal.

and im pretty sure if you ate a whole mountain, you would probably die of dehydration half way through, unless you have about 55 gallons of water handy

1. sure, let us just find the universe that happens in

2. You can get a really good resistance to whatever you want whether it be poison, drugs, whatever. The point still stands.

3. Again, lets find the universe where things live longer and don't need as much water

 

[Goremocker]

*snip*

But the empire state building is on earth only...so...yeah...I'm talkin' on earth,top down to a solid surface,and all the way to sea level.

That is easy. Zip-line to the shore since the bottom of that building isn't at sea level

No external service.Lets assume that it is sea level ok?

 

[SomeBritishDude]

According to string theory, yeah. Just some things are very, very improbable.

 

[crudus]

Snip

I can't jump off of the empire state building and live...BOOM! Logic killer!

Sure you can. Lets move to a smaller planet (or planetoid) so gravity is much less.

But the empire state isn't ON another planet(oid).

so put it there.

No external service.Lets assume that it is sea level ok?

Fine, either increase the wind resistance (btw, the winds up the Sky Scrapers reach 120 mph which is terminal velocity) or go to a universe where air resistance is better, you aren't as fragile, etc.

You actualy haven't proven that something isn't posible, just that demension copies aren't the same person. That is your opinion, and I will let you have it.

I said I can't proven the physics laws thing to you. I am willing to expand that statement to any logical argument we have. I didn't as you just said. Thus that statement is proven

 

[adragonofgold]

I like the opening credits of Futurama. "You can't prove it wont happen."

 

[Zacharine]

So I am going to have to say that anything is technically possible it just probably isn't going to happen.

Yet another contender for my challenge:

Disprove logic, without using logic while at it (as otherwise it will end up being a circular argument that is proof of nothing).


If you deem this impossible, then not everything is possible.

Not impossible, Improbable. According to Quantum physics it is entirely possible for you to walk through a wall. Unfortunately for this to happen, the electromagnetic field generated by every atom in your body (which is a lot of individual electromagnetic fields) would have to glitch out and not interact with the electromagnetic field generated by the atoms in the wall which is also a lot of individual electromagnetic fields. That combined with the improbability of a single one of your atoms passing through a wall makes it very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very ,very... very,very,very... very, very unlikely.

Quantum Mechanics does not extend to concepts.

I argue that it is impossible, even in theory, anywhere at any time by anyone/anything, to disprove logic.

Because the attempt would by necessity need to include logic at some point.

Even if only at the phase of claiming "Because of X, logic is disproven." Because this phrase itself relies on logic to be true. Thereby using that which it is attempting to disprove, as critical part of the proof.

QM has nothing to do with this. Because QM deals with subatomic particles, not logical absolutes or concepts.

I wasn't saying you can disprove logic. Well you can if it is faulty. According to the base theory of Quantum Physics, it is technically possible for anything to happen. That doesn't disprove logic at all. For some reason I get the feeling that you don't really know what logic is. Logic is more along the lines of "If 2+2=4 then 4-2 must equal 2." Logic isn't something you can disprove as it is a method of thought not a concept unto itself. I can however,disprove YOUR logic though because of the faults within it. Quantum Physics does affect concepts because concepts are influenced, shaped, and built by the world that we perceive around us. That world on the Subatomic level (AKA the level from which all other universal behavior is founded) is directly controlled by the principles of Quantum Physics. So technically I just disproved logic. Not all logic but some logic. What is it like to be my intellectual *****?

Then tell me, even if there was no reality, would the logical maxim "everything is what it is, and cannot be what it is not." still be true?

And you say logic is a method of thought. Okay, let us go forward from there.

Thoughts are concepts, expressed with language. Therefore, logic being a method of thought, it is a systematic application to express concepts.

Are those concepts, no matter what they are, invariably tied to reality?

Does the concept of number 0 disappear in places where no matter exists? Even if is so for a fleetingly small time?

How would the change within any subatomic particles spin affect the concept 'number 0'? Is there such a correlation?

I say there is not. The concept of numbers, or indeed of logic as a method of thought, is unchanges regardless of changes to the material reality around us. The idea of something being only what it is, is valid regardless of physical or metaphysical constraints. Thus the concept, is not affected by reality. And if there is no such connection between a concept and reality, nothing Quantum Mechanics says can affect those concepts that lack this linkage.

You say logic is not a concept, but a method of thought. Is this not a concept as well? As far as I know english language, a concept is an abstract idea, making logic, even under your definition, a concept.

Quantum Mechanics is not a philosophy, or even an overarching, all-applicable physical law as you seem to believe. It is a tightly constrained set of rules that apply within certain limits. Just as any other laws of nature.

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

 

[sunburst]

*snip*

But the empire state building is on earth only...so...yeah...I'm talkin' on earth,top down to a solid surface,and all the way to sea level.

Parachute.

You cannot prove an action or event is impossible under all imaginable circumstances, but logic problems can prove abstract concepts impossible. It is impossible to do the impossible because the nature of the concept of impossibility is that it cannot be done. This is true in all potential universes regardless of language because the concept remains the same. Are we done? Let's go out for ice cream!

 

[AMMO Kid]

If you hit yes and don't believe in God...but again I guess that works both ways lol

 

[Shankity Stick]

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.

 

[crudus]

And have you done anything to prove that it is possible to divide by zero? All you have done is say "Your argument is invalid because you cannot expand."

You made the claim my friend. The burden of proof is on you.

It is a fact, however. Turn on a calculator. Smack in the numbers. X divided by zero. Your calculator will tell you it has experienced a maths error.

I can (and have) program a calculator to say "ask Chuck Norris" and "Please stop touching me there" when you divide by 0 or by any number you want.

 

[Zacharine]

To all disbelivers, I am finished proving things to you. As long as I am above in the poll, I am happy. That reenforces my faith in humanity because there are more people in this world with an open mind compared to those who don't. That shows that the human race still has a chance since there are people willing to atempt the ilogical and further our knowledge of the universe/s that we live in.

Thus showing your real colours: Truth does not matter to you, only public opinion. You did not seek answers, or challenging conversation, but rather reinforcement to your pre-existing bias.

You also make several non-sequiturs in this last post of yours to this thread. But having seen and witnessed your ability to understand and utilize logic, I am not that surprised.

Have a good day, sir. I count this as an argument won for logic and reason.

I also count this as an inofficial admittance that your position of "everything is possible" is in fact, flawed.

I just realized something, we are arguing 2 different things. You are arguing that logic doesn't not exist, i'm arguing that logic could posibly not exist. Logic does, however, exist but might not exist in some other universe. You can't prove that such a universe doesn't exist, the same way I can't prove that such a universe definitly does exist. I am trying to prove that however. I am proving that a place like that could exist wich is proven simply because there is no prof otherwise.

No, I am arguing that it is impossible to disprove logic, without at the same time using logic. Everything else was tangential, responding to points you or others made.

In fact, ultimately, for my argument it does not matter if logic exists separately from any thinking minds or even of reality, as it would still be impossible to disprove. After all, disproving requires a thinking mind.

If there exists a universe that is void of life and somehow, void of logic, it still would not invalidate my argument, and thus would still counter yours.

Fine, as far as we know, one can't disprove something without logic. That doesn't mean that it isn't posible, symply imposibile for you to invision it in your curent state.

You really just can't admit being wrong, can you?

No, no and no. Because logic is not dependant if a human is using it, or if a hypothetical alien is using it. It does not matter who attempts the disproval, when they attempt it, or where they attempt it.

Making your statement of anything being possible, wrong. Why is it so hard to accept that you do not know everything, and as a human being, you made an error, a misjudgement in this thread, even after I and others keep piling the evidence against you?

 

[VGStrife]

Snip

I can't jump off of the empire state building and live...BOOM! Logic killer!

Sure you can. Lets move to a smaller planet (or planetoid) so gravity is much less.

But the empire state isn't ON another planet(oid).

so put it there.

No.
It is impossible to jump off the ES building, in all current situations, including placement, gravitational pull, air resistance, ground viscosity etc, land on my head (with no type of helmet) and survive without some sort of intervention.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

Well, I willing to call this off right here, if you are. A most stimulating conversation, thank you for that. I still think that it is impossible to disprove logic without ending in a circular argument, but outside of that there is very little that is impossible.

Certainly we cannot say that of anything within material realm. And concepts alone can be a bit tricky.

And if you feel like it, we can take this and continue in another thread. Or find a new topic altogether. Or simply go back to coasting the shores of the Escapist, waiting for new and interesting threads pop up and perhaps meet at another place, another time, around another topic, which no-one can predict...

Hell, I tried to cheat and redefine logic, just to beat you, and you still won. I'm very happy to call this off.

As for "coasting the shores of the Escapist, waiting for new and interesting threads to pop up" - I think we've found our impossibility right there! New and interesting threads on the escapist? Really? [sub] I joke, you're all lovely, interesting people, always with something new and insightful to say! Apart from the people who use lol. Know that I will find you, and make you 'lol' sufficiently to realise what laughing out loud is, and how it differs from typing lol in a thread[/sub]

Also a thread in which someone doesn't say something about using the search bar. Which I've just done, making me the token search-bar-asshole of the thread.

 

[GamerPhate]

Reality says no,

but Quantum Mechanics say yes.

 

[Shankity Stick]

You really just can't admit being wrong, can you?

No, no and no. Because logic is not dependant if a human is using it, or if a hypothetical alien is using it. It does not matter who attempts the disproval, when they attempt it, or where they attempt it.

Making your statement of anything being possible, wrong. Why is it so hard to accept that you do not know everything, and as a human being, you made an error, a misjudgement in this thread, even after I and others keep piling the evidence against you?

FINE! I could go on arguing but we are both very stuck in our own opinions and can't be swayed so I am going to be the bigger man. You win. Human concepts can't be disproved without logic. Happy?

 

[VGStrife]

And have you done anything to prove that it is possible to divide by zero? All you have done is say "Your argument is invalid because you cannot expand."

You made the claim my friend. The burden of proof is on you.

It is a fact, however. Turn on a calculator. Smack in the numbers. X divided by zero. Your calculator will tell you it has experienced a maths error.

I can (and have) program a calculator to say "ask Chuck Norris" and "Please stop touching me there" when you divide by 0 or by any number you want.

Also you can divide by zero in some situations (kind of) using l'hopials' rule on an equation that tends to 0/0

 

[dochmbi]

A great online resource for all things philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, here's an article on possible objects which seems relevant to the discussion:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-objects/

The article is actually rather nicely written and quite readable.

 

[Canid117]

So I am going to have to say that anything is technically possible it just probably isn't going to happen.

Yet another contender for my challenge:

Disprove logic, without using logic while at it (as otherwise it will end up being a circular argument that is proof of nothing).


If you deem this impossible, then not everything is possible.

Not impossible, Improbable. According to Quantum physics it is entirely possible for you to walk through a wall. Unfortunately for this to happen, the electromagnetic field generated by every atom in your body (which is a lot of individual electromagnetic fields) would have to glitch out and not interact with the electromagnetic field generated by the atoms in the wall which is also a lot of individual electromagnetic fields. That combined with the improbability of a single one of your atoms passing through a wall makes it very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very ,very... very,very,very... very, very unlikely.

Quantum Mechanics does not extend to concepts.

I argue that it is impossible, even in theory, anywhere at any time by anyone/anything, to disprove logic.

Because the attempt would by necessity need to include logic at some point.

Even if only at the phase of claiming "Because of X, logic is disproven." Because this phrase itself relies on logic to be true. Thereby using that which it is attempting to disprove, as critical part of the proof.

QM has nothing to do with this. Because QM deals with subatomic particles, not logical absolutes or concepts.

I wasn't saying you can disprove logic. Well you can if it is faulty. According to the base theory of Quantum Physics, it is technically possible for anything to happen. That doesn't disprove logic at all. For some reason I get the feeling that you don't really know what logic is. Logic is more along the lines of "If 2+2=4 then 4-2 must equal 2." Logic isn't something you can disprove as it is a method of thought not a concept unto itself. I can however,disprove YOUR logic though because of the faults within it. Quantum Physics does affect concepts because concepts are influenced, shaped, and built by the world that we perceive around us. That world on the Subatomic level (AKA the level from which all other universal behavior is founded) is directly controlled by the principles of Quantum Physics. So technically I just disproved logic. Not all logic but some logic. What is it like to be my intellectual *****?

Then tell me, even if there was no reality, would the logical maxim "everything is what it is, and cannot be what it is not." still be true?

And you say logic is a method of thought. Okay, let us go forward from there.

Thoughts are concepts, expressed with language. Therefore, logic being a method of thought, it is a systematic application to express concepts.

Are those concepts, no matter what they are, invariably tied to reality?

Does the concept of number 0 disappear in places where no matter exists? Even if is so for a fleetingly small time?

How would the change within any subatomic particles spin affect the concept 'number 0'? Is there such a correlation?

I say there is not. The concept of numbers, or indeed of logic as a method of thought, is unchanges regardless of changes to the material reality around us. The idea of something being only what it is, is valid regardless of physical or metaphysical constraints. Thus the concept, is not affected by reality. And if there is no such connection between a concept and reality, nothing Quantum Mechanics says can affect those concepts that lack this linkage.

You say logic is not a concept, but a method of thought. Is this not a concept as well? As far as I know English language, a concept is an abstract idea, making logic, even under your definition, a concept.

Quantum Mechanics is not a philosophy, or even an overarching, all-applicable physical law as you seem to believe. It is a tightly constrained set of rules that apply within certain limits. Just as any other laws of nature.

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

Logic is not an application of concepts but a means of getting there. 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. If a person had some kind of physical deformity within their brain that prevented them from understanding the concept of zero 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. A person draws their conclusions from what they perceive and concepts are no different. What a person perceives is reality as interpreted by their brains and reality is governed by a set of rules and Quantum Physics is the set of rules that governs all sub atomic particles which leads to the rules that govern atomic particles which leads to the rules that govern molecular particles and so on. 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. (AKA most of the universe) Quantum Physics affects the entirety of the universe while logic does not.

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