Anything is possible

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3117
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Felix »

Burning Ghost said: Someone asked me what would happen if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object.
Nothing at all, I would think, a complete stand off. However we are incapable of recognizing ultimate values: unstoppable, unmoveable, etc. As you said, these are simply figures of speech that lack real meaning.

Finite existence is the realm of restricted possibilities: this not that, then not now, me not you, etc., which means that anything is not possible here. However, as I said, in an eternal infinite universe, all bets are off, anything may indeed be possible. Or we can speak of levels of finitude: ponderable matter, quantum energy, etc. What is possible at one level is impossible at another.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Consul »

Marsh8472 wrote:I was using Fermat's last theorem as an example. I'm not sure if it's truly a necessary truth or not. The proof was peer reviewed but I would still consider it possible that something was overlooked. I haven't seen the proof myself. To me it would still be epistemically possible for this proof to not be a necessary truth. The problem here as I see it is that "what is known" is not actually a dichotomy where something is known to be true or not known to be true but about degrees of certainty that something is true. In that way everything is epistemically possible.
If everything is epistemically possible, then nothing is known. But the claim that the scientists know nothing is absurd. For example, the chemists do know that water is H2O; so it's epistemically impossible for water not to be H2O. (By the way, it is also metaphysically impossible for water not to be H2O.)
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:It is not epistemically possible that the LNC is false, since we know that it is true. There is no ignorance as in the case of FT before it was proven to be true. I cannot falsely believe that the LNC is true precisely because it is impossibly false (in the logical sense of "impossible").
There's a couple of layers here. Something could be unknowably true and may seem like impossibly false. To claim that something is true because it's impossible that it is false follows an argument from ignorance. Proving something is logically impossible is another issue I'm seeing here. If someone thought 3+2=1 was a necessary truth according to mathematics but then found out it was false because 3+2=5 this does not disprove mathematics because my knowledge of necessary truths in math contradicted the reality of mathematical truths in math. When you conclude that LNC is impossibly false, it could then be considered epistemically possible that it is not impossibly false for the same reason someone could think 3+2=1 and anything else disproves mathematics. Arguing against a necessary Truth with a necessary False in other words.
We have two "layers" here: modal truths and modal knowledge (of modal truths).
A mere modal belief can certainly be false. The question is whether there is modal knowledge, and if there is, whether there is infallible modal knowledge.
Is the LNC known to be necessarily true? If yes, is it infallibly known to be necessarily true?
I answer both questions in the affirmative. There is no possible situation which could falsify the LNC. It necessarily lacks a falsemaker.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:If the proposition <there are no necessary truths> is true, then it is either necessarily true or non-necessarily/contingently true. If it is necessarily true, it is self-refuting and false; and if it is non-necessarily true, it is false too for the following reasons, with the arguments being reductions ad absurdum:
If there are no necessary truths which included the law of non-contradiction then the part I underlined has no meaning. It is necessarily true and non-necessarily/contingently true, and it's an elephant or whatever else you want all at once as I see it. The either/or stuff assumes the logical laws again.
If you don't accept these logical laws, there's little point in trying to rationally argue with you.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:* If it is non-necessarily true that there are no necessary truths, then it is possibly false that there are no necessary truths, and thus possible that there are necessary truths. But given the modal principle that what is possible is necessarily possible (<>p –> []<>p), it follows that the proposition <it is possible that there are necessary truths> is itself a necessary truth, in which case it is actually false that there are no necessary truths.

* If it is non-necessarily true that there are no necessary truths, then there could have been necessary truths—then it is possible for there to be necessary truths. But given the modal principle that what is possibly necessary is necessary (<>[]p –> []p), the possibility of necessary truths implies their actuality. So if it is non-necessarily true and thus possibly false that there are no necessary truths, then it is actually false that there are no necessary truths.

Of course, you could deny the two principles of modal logic (belonging to system S5) involved, but you'll have a very hard time finding rationally plausible reasons for doing so.
Showing how the idea of no necessary truths existing leads to a contradiction does not prove anything unless we assume the law of non-contradiction is correct and is a reliable authoritity in determining what is true. How can you show no necessary truths leads to a contradiction without using the law of non-contradiction? A conclusion is not proven false just because the conclusion is absurd. I'm not saying the absurd is the truth either, just that it's possible the truth is absurd.
This statement of yours is itself absurd.
Absurdity implies falsity!
A valid reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the falsity of the premise.
For example, let's assume that the LNC is not true:

1. ~~(p & ~p) [premise]
2. p & ~p [from 1 by double negation]
3. ~~~(p & ~p) [from 1+2 by reductio ab absurdum]
4. ~(p & ~p) [from 3 by double negation]
q.e.d.

This is a valid proof (in classical logic)!
Of course, if you deny the LNC, you will deny the validity of reductiones ad absurdum.
So David Lewis is right when he says that "this debate instantly reaches deadlock."

However, as for the assertion that there are no necessary truths, even if you reject the LNC, there are still some logical truths whose necessity is rationally undeniable such as p –> p and (p & q) –> p. If you deny the latter, you simply don't understand "and".
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

If everything is epistemically possible, then nothing is known. But the claim that the scientists know nothing is absurd. For example, the chemists do know that water is H2O; so it's epistemically impossible for water not to be H2O. (By the way, it is also metaphysically impossible for water not to be H2O.)
Every hypothesis, theory, and law in science is supposed to be non-falsifiable. That means that it's supposed to be logically possible for the hypothesis to be wrong. I pointed this all out earlier in the thread. You're assuming atoms for sure exist. Atomic theory is a useful and strong theory but it is not a fact. Water being constructed of H2O is not a fact. The good scientists know that everything discovered in science is provisionally true not absolute.
We have two "layers" here: modal truths and modal knowledge (of modal truths).
A mere modal belief can certainly be false. The question is whether there is modal knowledge, and if there is, whether there is infallible modal knowledge.
Is the LNC known to be necessarily true? If yes, is it infallibly known to be necessarily true?
I answer both questions in the affirmative. There is no possible situation which could falsify the LNC. It necessarily lacks a falsemaker.
Lack of imagination fallacy here. One falsemaker could be if everything has no meaning then nothing can be true, making the law of non-contradiction untrue.
If you don't accept these logical laws, there's little point in trying to rationally argue with you.
I don't deny them either. I just want proof. If there is no absolute proof, why not just agree that it's possible that it's wrong? That's the only position I'm taking. That the probability of being right about this is not 100%.
This statement of yours is itself absurd.
Absurdity implies falsity!
A valid reductio ad absurdum demonstrates the falsity of the premise.
For example, let's assume that the LNC is not true:

1. ~~(p & ~p) [premise]
2. p & ~p [from 1 by double negation]
3. ~~~(p & ~p) [from 1+2 by reductio ab absurdum]
4. ~(p & ~p) [from 3 by double negation]
q.e.d.

This is a valid proof (in classical logic)!
Of course, if you deny the LNC, you will deny the validity of reductiones ad absurdum.
So David Lewis is right when he says that "this debate instantly reaches deadlock."
I agree it's reductio ad absurdum. I said that already. The problem is that even though it's an absurd conclusion, that doesn't prove it is a wrong conclusion. You would be committing a fallacy fallacy with this argument:
The fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.
As I understand it, committing a fallacy opens up the possibility of being wrong. Why is it not rational to admit that logic might be wrong then? Then anything is possible, BOOM, then we're done here.
However, as for the assertion that there are no necessary truths, even if you reject the LNC, there are still some logical truths whose necessity is rationally undeniable such as p –> p and (p & q) –> p. If you deny the latter, you simply don't understand "and".
That means nothing though. Their negations would also be necessary truths. Finding a necessary truth does not exclusively prove there is necessary truth without using the law of non-contradiction with that.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Burning ghost »

Marsh -

Of course logic can be wrong! Who said otherwise?

It can be wrong in how it is used and where it is used like every single other method applied by humans.

Does logic explain everything? No. It only explains things logically.
AKA badgerjelly
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Burning ghost wrote:Marsh -

Of course logic can be wrong! Who said otherwise?

It can be wrong in how it is used and where it is used like every single other method applied by humans.

Does logic explain everything? No. It only explains things logically.
I don't know it seemed like everyone was saying the law of non-contradiction was true with no possibility of being false. But if it's possible that it's not true and we depend on it for proving things as true and not false then this would make it possible for anything proven impossible to be possible. Then anything is possible because of that blindspot in the limits of our capabilities to know things
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Burning ghost »

It is logically true. Logical truths don't fit in everywhere. Morality is one such area where logic can be applied, but it is not capable of giving an absolute truth like it can in mathematics or as applied to language in a formal manner.

I think this is the route of the confusion in this thread. Not to mention there has been no attempt to uncover some proposed grounding of logical method or to question if there is one and of what real use it could be in revealing further misapplications.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Anything Is Not Possible

Post by Rr6 »

Marsh--[yid=]E-O5dZ9BLLc[/yid] with that lady acting like she has it all figured out :)
If you are your own judge about whether your claims have been invalidated then I'm sure your claims have not been invalidated on those conditions. But who is the authority on objective Truth if two people reason to different conclusions. But people thumb their noses at those sources as authorities too.
Each one of is a judge of what is a valid truth, in regards to any given concepts, scenarios, laws etc..

There exist only five regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, irrespective of multiverse ideas.
...as associated with law of rational, logical common sense...........................

** does not equal ***
...as associated with law of rational logical common sense.....

See my cosmic hierarchy, 1, 1a, 1b, 1c and 2, 2a, b, 2c, 2d.
....as associated with the law of rational, logical common..........

See my four level/line sequential numerical patterns, and how they can be applied to a torus pattern, that, presents the primary agents of; Space ( ) - Time ^v - Space )(

Space ( )---gravity as positive curvature with peak inversion/invagination

Time ^v--sine-wave topology resultant of invagination/inversion as based on triangular set of 3, 6, 9, 12 etc....

Space )(---dark energy as negative curvature with peak invagination/inversion.

(><)(><)
...has bilateral implications............

(^v)(v^)
...has bilateral implications............

The concept of I-verse is resultant of a bilateral biological and the center of our conceptually personal universe.

I-verse can be associated with known limitations of cartesian { XYZ } spatial dimension as the hyper-spatial dimension or vector that is at 45 degrees to XYZ.

In this hyper-spatial dimension way of thinking, I-verse closely reflects our self viewpoint that is a point-of-view, within the greater, finite, occupied space, and the macro-infinite, non-occupied space beyond that embraces the finite whole and I-verse, to some degree.
Conceptual, XYZ, 3D, tetra{4}hedron
Conceptual, XYZ, 3D, tetra{4}hedron
XYZ tet.png (31.21 KiB) Viewed 6256 times
( * / * ) hyper-spatial and metaphysical-1 I-verse.

( * | * ) 2D Slice-of-Time

r6

-- Updated September 23rd, 2016, 12:56 pm to add the following --

To clarify, the I-verse has two parts;

1} the I i.e. metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept,

2} the verse, ergo 3D biological composed of physical/energy.

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Consul »

[Please don't quote me without adding my name (to each and every quotation)!]
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:If everything is epistemically possible, then nothing is known. But the claim that the scientists know nothing is absurd. For example, the chemists do know that water is H2O; so it's epistemically impossible for water not to be H2O. (By the way, it is also metaphysically impossible for water not to be H2O.)
Every hypothesis, theory, and law in science is supposed to be non-falsifiable. That means that it's supposed to be logically possible for the hypothesis to be wrong. I pointed this all out earlier in the thread. You're assuming atoms for sure exist. Atomic theory is a useful and strong theory but it is not a fact. Water being constructed of H2O is not a fact. The good scientists know that everything discovered in science is provisionally true not absolute.
Logical possibility is formal consistency, and it is indeed logically possible for water not to be H2O—which simply means that "It is not the case that water is H2O" is not a logical contradiction. Nonetheless, it is both physically and metaphysically impossible for water not to be H2O.
This is not to say that there is no possible world where people use "water" to refer to some stuff which is not H2O; but this is a case of homonomy, so that we would have to differentiate between water (= H2O) and water* (≠ H2O). And then it is fallacious to argue that water isn't necessarily or essentially H2O because water* in some other possible world isn't H2O.

It is a scientifically confirmed fact that water is H2O. This is and remains true even if the elementary particles of which atoms and molecules are composed are not really corpuscles (tiny bodies) but e.g. energy concentrates in fields.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:We have two "layers" here: modal truths and modal knowledge (of modal truths).
A mere modal belief can certainly be false. The question is whether there is modal knowledge, and if there is, whether there is infallible modal knowledge.
Is the LNC known to be necessarily true? If yes, is it infallibly known to be necessarily true?
I answer both questions in the affirmative. There is no possible situation which could falsify the LNC. It necessarily lacks a falsemaker.
Lack of imagination fallacy here.
No, not even God could imagine a contradictory state of affairs.
Marsh8472 wrote:One falsemaker could be if everything has no meaning then nothing can be true, making the law of non-contradiction untrue.
To say that the LNC is a necessary truth is not to say that it is a necessary existent, i.e. something existing in all possible worlds. Generally, truths depend on meaningful entities which function as truth-bearers (declarative sentences, statements, propositions), and there are possible worlds where there are no truth-bearers and hence no truths either. Nothing is true in such worlds, but this doesn't means that nothing is true at them, because there are still truths about them (which aren't part of them).
For example, it is true at or about a truthless world that there are no truths in it.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:If you don't accept these logical laws, there's little point in trying to rationally argue with you.
I don't deny them either. I just want proof. If there is no absolute proof, why not just agree that it's possible that it's wrong? That's the only position I'm taking. That the probability of being right about this is not 100%.
Logical axioms such as the LNC are not provable, i.e. deducible from other logical sentences; they are self-evident. That is, if you understand the LNC properly and think hard about it, you will see that it is and must be true.
You'll presumably reply that our logical intuition is not an infallible source of logical knowledge, but in the case of the LNC it is unintelligible how it could fail us, how the belief in it could be false.
Marsh8472 wrote:I agree it's reductio ad absurdum. I said that already. The problem is that even though it's an absurd conclusion, that doesn't prove it is a wrong conclusion. You would be committing a fallacy fallacy with this argument:
The fallacy fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when it is claimed that if an argument contains a logical fallacy, the proposition it was used to support is wrong.
As I understand it, committing a fallacy opens up the possibility of being wrong. Why is it not rational to admit that logic might be wrong then? Then anything is possible, BOOM, then we're done here.
Of course, when you employ a fallacious, i.e. logically invalid, argument in support of an asserted proposition it doesn't follow that the asserted proposition is false just because your argument for it is invalid.
But a non-fallacious, valid argument against the asserted proposition in the form of a reductio ad absurdum does prove that it is false. For a proposition implying an absurdity, i.e. a formal contradiction, is provably false.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:However, as for the assertion that there are no necessary truths, even if you reject the LNC, there are still some logical truths whose necessity is rationally undeniable such as p –> p and (p & q) –> p. If you deny the latter, you simply don't understand "and".
That means nothing though. Their negations would also be necessary truths. Finding a necessary truth does not exclusively prove there is necessary truth without using the law of non-contradiction with that.
You're being evasive!
Even if there were cases of p & ~p, it would still be necessarily true that (p & ~p) –> p.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Consul wrote: Logical possibility is formal consistency, and it is indeed logically possible for water not to be H2O—which simply means that "It is not the case that water is H2O" is not a logical contradiction. Nonetheless, it is both physically and metaphysically impossible for water not to be H2O.
This is not to say that there is no possible world where people use "water" to refer to some stuff which is not H2O; but this is a case of homonomy, so that we would have to differentiate between water (= H2O) and water* (≠ H2O). And then it is fallacious to argue that water isn't necessarily or essentially H2O because water* in some other possible world isn't H2O.

It is a scientifically confirmed fact that water is H2O. This is and remains true even if the elementary particles of which atoms and molecules are composed are not really corpuscles (tiny bodies) but e.g. energy concentrates in fields.
Atomic theory is not a fact, science does not work that way. Science works based off of inductive reasoning. More testing and peer review makes it more probable to be true but never absolutely true. It needs to be possible to be proven wrong to be a theory in science. That's why intelligent design hasn't made it into science. You can refer to this for more information https://explorable.com/truth-and-theory (I barely read it and am assuming it agrees with me)
Consul wrote: No, not even God could imagine a contradictory state of affairs.
If god could make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it, maybe he could
Consul wrote:Logical axioms such as the LNC are not provable, i.e. deducible from other logical sentences; they are self-evident. That is, if you understand the LNC properly and think hard about it, you will see that it is and must be true.
You'll presumably reply that our logical intuition is not an infallible source of logical knowledge, but in the case of the LNC it is unintelligible how it could fail us, how the belief in it could be false.
It could fail you if you were a brain in a vat and they gave you the same feeling of certainty of its infallibility. It's probably true, so probable that it could easily be confused for fact. But I would argue that the probability of being wrong about that could be 1x10^-999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability that it could be wrong or any number smaller than that if you wish but greater than zero, very close to 0%. I don't think it's that unreasonable.
Consul wrote: Of course, when you employ a fallacious, i.e. logically invalid, argument in support of an asserted proposition it doesn't follow that the asserted proposition is false just because your argument for it is invalid.
But a non-fallacious, valid argument against the asserted proposition in the form of a reductio ad absurdum does prove that it is false. For a proposition implying an absurdity, i.e. a formal contradiction, is provably false.
Your argument does have a fallacy though. It commits a fallacy fallacy. A fallacy is an argument why something could be wrong but not an argument that it is wrong. Absurdness does not prove falseness.
Consul wrote: You're being evasive!
Even if there were cases of p & ~p, it would still be necessarily true that (p & ~p) –> p.
Yes according to a truth table F->X is a true statement. Putting aside we're merely assuming its truth as a logical operation on a truth table, if the law of non-contradiction is not correct it could be a false statement too. In terms of boolean algebra we would be saying 0 equals 1, true and false are the same thing. Don't you have to prove something is not false for it to be a necessary truth? The terms true and false really become meaningless without the law of non-contradiction since they could be synonyms of each other.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Consul »

Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:It is a scientifically confirmed fact that water is H2O. This is and remains true even if the elementary particles of which atoms and molecules are composed are not really corpuscles (tiny bodies) but e.g. energy concentrates in fields.
Atomic theory is not a fact, science does not work that way. Science works based off of inductive reasoning. More testing and peer review makes it more probable to be true but never absolutely true. It needs to be possible to be proven wrong to be a theory in science. That's why intelligent design hasn't made it into science. You can refer to this for more information https://explorable.com/truth-and-theory (I barely read it and am assuming it agrees with me)
That water is H2O is and will always be a scientific fact.

"While, however, we must remain alive to the possibility of radical changes in our scientific outlook, we must not exaggerate this possibility either. Consider a corridor which gives access to a number of rooms, in each of which there is a scientist engaged in fundamental research. In room number one there is a nuclear physicist, in room number two an atomic physicist, in room number three a classical physicist. In room number four there is a physical chemist and in room number five there is an inorganic or organic chemist. In room number six there is a biochemist, in room number seven a cytologist, and in room number eight there is a physiologist. It is likely that revolutionary changes made in room n will usually have very little practical effect on room n+1, and will probably have no practical effect at all on rooms n+2, n+3, etc. (I say practical effect, because I do not wish to deny that the changes in earlier rooms may have some effect on how the scientists in later rooms look at the world.) This relative independence of the various rooms from one another obtains because it is usually only the approximate correctness of the results got in room n that are needed by the man in room n+1, and an approximation to the results got in room n will pretty certainly be enough for the man in room n+2. Now a revolutionary theory will clearly have to predict, within the limits of experimental error, the results which constitute the evidence for the theory that it is meant to replace. Consider, for example, the general theory of relativity in its relation to the Newtonian theory of gravitation. Only in exceptional cases will the two theories predict different results, over and above the limits of experimental error. Most of the results that the man in room n+1 wants from the man in room n can be got from a rather old-fashioned theory on the n level, and in the case of room n+2 it is probable that all can. Still more is this so with rooms n+3, n+4, etc. It is, for example, extremely unlikely that revolutionary discoveries in nuclear physics will lead to any substantial modification of our beliefs about the physiology of respiration."

(Smart, J. J. C. "Philosophy and Scientific Plausibility." 1966. In Essays Metaphysical and Moral: Selected Philosophical Papers, 11-24. Oxford: Blackwell, 1987. p. 13)
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:No, not even God could imagine a contradictory state of affairs.
If god could make a rock so heavy that even he could not lift it, maybe he could.
Your "maybe" is utterly baseless.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:Logical axioms such as the LNC are not provable, i.e. deducible from other logical sentences; they are self-evident. That is, if you understand the LNC properly and think hard about it, you will see that it is and must be true.
You'll presumably reply that our logical intuition is not an infallible source of logical knowledge, but in the case of the LNC it is unintelligible how it could fail us, how the belief in it could be false.
It could fail you if you were a brain in a vat and they gave you the same feeling of certainty of its infallibility. It's probably true, so probable that it could easily be confused for fact. But I would argue that the probability of being wrong about that could be 1x10^-999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability that it could be wrong or any number smaller than that if you wish but greater than zero, very close to 0%. I don't think it's that unreasonable.
I think it's unreasonable to deny that it is objectively certain that the LNC is (necessarily) true, because there just isn't any real or genuine possibility of error here.
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:Of course, when you employ a fallacious, i.e. logically invalid, argument in support of an asserted proposition it doesn't follow that the asserted proposition is false just because your argument for it is invalid. But a non-fallacious, valid argument against the asserted proposition in the form of a reductio ad absurdum does prove that it is false. For a proposition implying an absurdity, i.e. a formal contradiction, is provably false.
Your argument does have a fallacy though. It commits a fallacy fallacy. A fallacy is an argument why something could be wrong but not an argument that it is wrong. Absurdness does not prove falseness.
Yes, it does! In logic, absurdities arent just oddities but inconsistencies and thus (necessary) falsities.

"We will use the rule of conditional proof and the notion of contradiction to introduce a new method of proof, the indirect proof. This proof may also be called proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum proof. ('Reductio ad absurdum' means 'to reduce to the absurd.' A contradiction is often called an absurdity. Thus to prove a contradiction is to reduce a set of premises to absurdity.) The method of proof by contradiction is easily explained. By modus tollendo tollens we can derive the negation of the antecedent of a conditional when we know that the consequent is false. If the consequent is a contradiction we know it is logically false. So fromP –> (Q & ~Q) we can derive ~P. This is the Law of Absurdity."

(Suppes, Patrick, and Shirley Hill. First Course in Mathematical Logic. 1964. Reprint, New York: Dover, 2002. p. 146)
Marsh8472 wrote:
Consul wrote:You're being evasive! Even if there were cases of p & ~p, it would still be necessarily true that (p & ~p) –> p.
Yes according to a truth table F->X is a true statement. Putting aside we're merely assuming its truth as a logical operation on a truth table, if the law of non-contradiction is not correct it could be a false statement too. In terms of boolean algebra we would be saying 0 equals 1, true and false are the same thing. Don't you have to prove something is not false for it to be a necessary truth? The terms true and false really become meaningless without the law of non-contradiction since they could be synonyms of each other.
Well, they are not—not even in dialetheic logic, in which a proposition can be both true and false.

Are you a logical anarchist or nihilist? Do you think the world has no logical structure?

There are impossible worlds where contradictions are true, but what is true in an impossible world isn't really true. (Compare: what is true only according to some fictional story isn't really true.)
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Marsh8472
Posts: 112
Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Marsh8472 »

Consul wrote:That water is H2O is and will always be a scientific fact.
Water being H2O as a scientific fact assumes water is made up of atoms is a fact. Matter being made up of atoms assumes atomic theory is a fact. Facts are not falsifiable. If it is truly non-falsifiable fact as you say, then it doesn't belong in science.
Consul wrote:Your "maybe" is utterly baseless.
It is, just like bringing god into it was. But if we assume that a god exists and an omnipotent one then that could be something.
Consul wrote:I think it's unreasonable to deny that it is objectively certain that the LNC is (necessarily) true, because there just isn't any real or genuine possibility of error here.
How do you prove it though. Being certain and not finding any evidence or rationale to say it could be wrong does not prove it's wrong. We could say it is then euphemistically possible that the LNC is not true on those grounds.

Consul wrote:Yes, it does! In logic, absurdities arent just oddities but inconsistencies and thus (necessary) falsities.

"We will use the rule of conditional proof and the notion of contradiction to introduce a new method of proof, the indirect proof. This proof may also be called proof by contradiction or reductio ad absurdum proof. ('Reductio ad absurdum' means 'to reduce to the absurd.' A contradiction is often called an absurdity. Thus to prove a contradiction is to reduce a set of premises to absurdity.) The method of proof by contradiction is easily explained. By modus tollendo tollens we can derive the negation of the antecedent of a conditional when we know that the consequent is false. If the consequent is a contradiction we know it is logically false. So fromP –> (Q & ~Q) we can derive ~P. This is the Law of Absurdity."

(Suppes, Patrick, and Shirley Hill. First Course in Mathematical Logic. 1964. Reprint, New York: Dover, 2002. p. 146)
Na it's a fallacy fallacy. It's like saying "Big bang is wrong because it means something came from nothing which is absurd". Calling something absurd does not prove it's wrong. Logic is a model of reality but the model can be wrong.
Consul wrote:Well, they are not—not even in dialetheic logic, in which a proposition can be both true and false.

Are you a logical anarchist or nihilist? Do you think the world has no logical structure?

There are impossible worlds where contradictions are true, but what is true in an impossible world isn't really true. (Compare: what is true only according to some fictional story isn't really true.)
I just know my flaws. Even being able to verify with absolute certainty the universe existed a second ago is impossible.
User avatar
Misty
Premium Member
Posts: 5934
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Misty »

BelieveNothing wrote:I would rather not hear from people who agree that anything is possible,
"Anything is possible" is only true within the realm of possibility.

One could not have prevented ones birth or the guarantee one is going to die, so "anything is possible," per se, is not true.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Anything, Is Not Possible

Post by Rr6 »

Anything is possible, that, does not violate the finite set of inviolate cosmic laws/principles. imho

Ex the only exists five possible regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, irrespective of multiverse scenarios.

The I-verse has three aspects to it.

I as the metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts

Verse as being biological ergo the bilateral set of eyes, testes, ovaries, ears, limbs etc....

( * / * ) is both bilateral biological consciousness, and a 2D Slice-of-Mind.

However, the 2D Slice-of-Mind is in purple because it has an association to the biological's spirit-of-intent.. Humans having the most access to metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.


The other way Ive presented metaphysical-1, slice-of-mind is ( * | * ) with no color so as to not be tainted ergo pure and neutral.

However, humans are not pure or perfect because physical/energy is not pure nor perfect and neutral. It is always tainted, skewed etc left or right, good or bad, etc.....

Ergo ( * / * ) or ( * \ * ) is biological having a physical/energy charge skewed more positive or negative, irrespective of what degree of charge.

Or we can just show that bilateral biologicals have a sense of time ergo occupied space ergo Observed Time and present that a 2D slice-of-time between past and future. ( * | * ).

Ive also showed many times, how the 3D tetrahedron, when turning itself inside-out, comes to a phase where it is 2D, subdivided triangle.

Here is that link to graphic again. \Y/ or see the link as follows.
http://trinity2011.blogspot.com/2011/03 ... ement.html
r6
There exist only five regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe, irrespective of multiverse ideas.
...as associated with law of rational, logical common sense...........................
** does not equal ***
...as associated with law of rational logical common sense.....
In this hyper-spatial dimension way of thinking, I-verse closely reflects our self viewpoint that is a point-of-view, within the greater, finite, occupied space, and the macro-infinite, non-occupied space beyond that embraces the finite whole and I-verse, to some degree.
XYZ tet.png
( * / * ) hyper-spatial and metaphysical-1 I-verse.
( * | * ) 2D Slice-of-Time
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
User avatar
BelieveNothing
Posts: 109
Joined: January 24th, 2013, 6:17 am
Location: 2nd cloud from the right
Contact:

Re: Anything is possible

Post by BelieveNothing »

How would anyone prove that something is impossible without knowing all there is to know about that 'something'?

If you knew all there is to know about something you would have to know all there is to know about everything else because of the way things are 'connected' or 'associated'.

I think anything is possible because it can't be proven that anything is impossible. hey r6.. how would you prove that 00 is not equal to 000 to a being that can't count? the devil is in the detail. before you can prove anything you have to make assumptions. I think it's safe to assume that "anything is possible" does not have to be proven and anything can be possible because it cannot be proven otherwise..

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 12:41 pm to add the following --
Marsh8472 wrote:

As I understand it, committing a fallacy opens up the possibility of being wrong. Why is it not rational to admit that logic might be wrong then? Then anything is possible, BOOM, then we're done here.
This is something I believe and it's kind of what I'm trying to say. I guess reality is a slippery beast and nothing really exists anyway?

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 1:59 pm to add the following --

Can anyone help me get my head around this?

Is it possible that anything is possible if it is impossible to prove that anything is impossible?

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 2:43 pm to add the following --

If you prove something is impossible then "anything is possible"must be false,
but if it's impossible to prove that same something is impossible then "anything is possible"must still be false.
i just think that little mental exercise exposes the limitations of logic though,
I mean it can not be proven that it can not be proven that it can not be proven that it can not be proven... and so forth and so on..

I suppose it's impossible to prove that "anything is possible" is impossible to prove?

I swear logic is flawed and anything is possible!

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 3:01 pm to add the following --

Please... Is it impossible that logic is not flawed? I never said nothing is impossible, I just believe that anything is possible and I can't comprehend any proof that it is not possible.

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 3:39 pm to add the following --
ThamiorTheThinker wrote:Okay, BelieveNothing, I need to clear up some confusion....

....My question becomes, then: what's your point? You haven't extrapolated some extra concept from this. You're just making a claim about the contingency of physical reality and then leaving the point in the air. Was there something else you wanted to add? I'm not seeing where you're going with this post, it's rather like a dead-end if you ask me.

The point as Rr6 explained earlier is that we are making an effort to find some 'truth'..

I personally don't believe in absolute truths but prefer to accept things as 'possible'.

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 3:44 pm to add the following --

If nothing else came from this post then at least I was trying to explore alternative perceptions.. If one person who refused to believe "anything is possible" begins to question his/her disbelief after reading from this then I believe that's an achievement worth striving for and working on!

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 6:40 pm to add the following --

Can anything be proven? It must be possible that things can be proven because anything is possible, but is it true that things can be proven? I suspect logic is flawed beyond reconciliation.

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 10:01 pm to add the following --

In any case when the answer to a question is unknown, any meaningful answer could be possible because no contrary answer has been proven, or in some cases multiple answers are equally possible. The things we don't know vastly outnumber the things we do know and in the context of the vast unknown anything is possible. Just because a question can't be answered yet doesn't mean we should invalidate any attempt to answer it, true false or otherwise. Also just because a question can't be answered yet shouldn't stop it from being asked..

If only for the sake of speculation "anything is possible".

-- Updated March 23rd, 2017, 10:29 pm to add the following --

A question for any 'logic boffins' out there.. If it is true that everything is connected (and by everything I am referring to an infinite set of possible observations) then does it follow that everything must be surrounded? With no recognizable boundaries, nothing would be at any extreme position. Could you add a one in-front of an infinite number of zeros to represent how many things are possible without being aware that an infinite number of zeros precedes the one and the truth is surrounded? All of this is speculation of course, I don't even know if there is such a thing as an infinite set of possible observations. I can't prove that there isn't one though either ;)
Reality is not all in your mind.
User avatar
Rr6
Posts: 1034
Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller

Re: Anything is possible

Post by Rr6 »

BelieveNothing wrote: The point as Rr6 explained earlier is that we are making an effort to find some 'truth'..
I personally don't believe in absolute truths but prefer to accept things as 'possible'.
The exist five and only five possible regular/symmetrical polyhedra of Universe. This is a relatively simple absolute truth that anyone can try for themselves.

Since it is an absolute it is true every where and every when irrespective of any alledegd multiverse scenario.

Simple not complex yet so few appear to be able to grasp it, acknowledge and accept it.

It is easier for rich human to go through the eye of a needle than some intellectuals to drop their ego. imho

r6
"U"niverse > UniVerse > universe > I-verse < you-verse < we-verse < them-verse
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021