It's not logically possible but still might be possible. To assert that it is definitely not possible would be an argument from ignorance I would say. Something can be possible and impossible at the same time like I pointed out with Fermats last theorem. That's why it's ok to think that something is possible when it actually is not. Possible is a subjective term in that way.Consul wrote:Is it logically possible for contradictions to be true? No!Marsh8472 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
Right, if we assume this as an axiom then not anything is possible. But for someone who does not make this assumption, that makes it an unknown for them and possible that logically impossible does not mean absolutely impossible.
Logical possibility is the highest possible kind of possibility, so there can be no "hyperlogical" kind of possibility that is higher than logical possibility, such that logical impossibilities are "hyperlogical" possibilities.
Anything is possible
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Anything is possible
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Anything is possible
The law of non-contradiction is a logical truth and hence a necessary truth; and what is necessarily true isn't possibly false. So there is no possible world where there are true contradictions. That's not an argument from ignorance because "[t]his we know for certain, and a priori, and without any exception for especially perplexing subject matters." (David Lewis, "Logic for Equivocators") For "a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point of it for reality." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, §4.463)Marsh8472 wrote: It's not logically possible but still might be possible. To assert that it is definitely not possible would be an argument from ignorance I would say. Something can be possible and impossible at the same time like I pointed out with Fermats last theorem. That's why it's ok to think that something is possible when it actually is not. Possible is a subjective term in that way.
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Anything is possible
Again, something like Fermat's last theorem was proven to be a logical truth derived from other logical truths. But people did not know that until 1994. Before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it. As stated earlier, the problem with asking the question "is anything possible?". Is that there are multiple definitions of possible. In the sense that someone does not know whether the law of non-contradiction can be wrong, lacks the knowledge of it being impossible for the law of non-contradiction to be false. It is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false in that way.Consul wrote:The law of non-contradiction is a logical truth and hence a necessary truth; and what is necessarily true isn't possibly false. So there is no possible world where there are true contradictions. That's not an argument from ignorance because "[t]his we know for certain, and a priori, and without any exception for especially perplexing subject matters." (David Lewis, "Logic for Equivocators") For "a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point of it for reality." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, §4.463)Marsh8472 wrote: It's not logically possible but still might be possible. To assert that it is definitely not possible would be an argument from ignorance I would say. Something can be possible and impossible at the same time like I pointed out with Fermats last theorem. That's why it's ok to think that something is possible when it actually is not. Possible is a subjective term in that way.
What is a necessary truth according to modal logic is
I would still consider it an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination fallacy to declare all possible worlds share a necessary truth that we consider to be a necessary truth.Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.
What if you're a brain in a vat and you are hard-wired to believe that the law of non-contradiction is true when it's really false? If we accept by logical axiom that anything can be wrong on that point then anything is possible.
-- Updated September 20th, 2016, 7:58 pm to add the following --
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Anything is possible
The answer is obvious. We would create a new concept in order to adhere to this experience.
If the experience itself is an impossibility, which it is, then we'd need to assess what is meant by "impossible".
No term we use in language has a definitive and separate meaning outside of language. All words are part of body of words and all the words you know require all the others. Some are obviously more closely related than others, and this "closeness" is a merely a cognitive metaphor.
Contradiction is purely linguistical.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Anything is possible
Our finite, eternally existent, occupied space Universe is dynamic, however, it does not move in relationship to anything else, except itself i.e. any of its parts or collective set thereof. In this sense, Universe is and unstoppable force.Burning ghost---Someone asked me what would happen if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object.
Within this context I above, we can improve upon your given scenario by replacing the words unmovable object with dynamic limits of local set of motion to any other local set of motion. Now we have;
.01} unstoppable occupied space Universe,
....01a} local set--- ergo one-part of otherness, twoness, consciousness,
....01b} local set---ergo a 2nd part of Universe as otherness, twoness, consciousness.
Or as Fuller states it, approximately,... 'we refined our definitions, so as to get closer to absolute truth'...The answer is obvious. We would create a new concept in order to adhere to this experience.
Finite metaphysical-1 limits, at minimum of absolute truths.If the experience itself is an impossibility, which it is, then we'd need to assess what is meant by "impossible".
Finite physical/energy limits--- fermions and bosons ---
Finite occupied space limits--fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy.
** ≠ ***No term we use in language has a definitive and separate meaning outside of language. All words are part of body of words and all the words you know require all the others. Some are obviously more closely related than others, and this "closeness" is a merely a cognitive metaphor.
** >< ***Contradiction is purely linguistical.
00 >< 000
{00}------{000}
( * * ) ----consciousness
( * | * ) ----2D Slice-of-Space
( * | * ) ---2D, Slice-of-Time
( * / * )------2D, Slice-of-Mind
r6
- Consul
- Posts: 6038
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Anything is possible
First of all, Fermat's theorem (FT) is a mathematical truth, not a logical one. Of course, in his proof Wiles used logical reasoning and logical inferences. Now we know that FT is true. You write that "before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it." Yes, mathematical truths are necessary truths, and before we knew that FT is (necessarily) true it was epistemically possible that it is false. Now it is no longer epistemically possible that it is false, since it is now known to be true. But even when it was epistemically possible for FT to be false, we knew that it is either (necessarily) true or (necessarily) false.Marsh8472 wrote:Again, something like Fermat's last theorem was proven to be a logical truth derived from other logical truths. But people did not know that until 1994. Before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it. As stated earlier, the problem with asking the question "is anything possible?". Is that there are multiple definitions of possible. In the sense that someone does not know whether the law of non-contradiction can be wrong, lacks the knowledge of it being impossible for the law of non-contradiction to be false. It is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false in that way.Consul wrote: The law of non-contradiction is a logical truth and hence a necessary truth; and what is necessarily true isn't possibly false. So there is no possible world where there are true contradictions. That's not an argument from ignorance because "[t]his we know for certain, and a priori, and without any exception for especially perplexing subject matters." (David Lewis, "Logic for Equivocators") For "a contradiction fills the whole of logical space leaving no point of it for reality." (Wittgenstein, Tractatus, §4.463)
What is a necessary truth according to modal logic is
I would still consider it an argument from ignorance and lack of imagination fallacy to declare all possible worlds share a necessary truth that we consider to be a necessary truth.Logical truths (including tautologies) are truths which are considered to be necessarily true. This is to say that they are considered to be such that they could not be untrue and no situation could arise which would cause us to reject a logical truth. However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.
What if you're a brain in a vat and you are hard-wired to believe that the law of non-contradiction is true when it's really false? If we accept by logical axiom that anything can be wrong on that point then anything is possible.
"We say that a proposition p is epistemically possible relative to what is known in an epistemic situation S just in case p is consistent with what is known in (or 'possible in view of what is known in') S."
(Dietz, Richard. "Epistemic Modals and Correct Disagreement." In Relative Truth, edited by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Max Kölbel, 239-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 240)
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").
Many theists have claimed that God and his actions are not subject to the LNC, but C. S. Lewis is surely right in replying that "nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
(Lewis, C. S. The Problem of Pain. 1940. Reprint, New York: HarperCollins, 1996. p. 18)
Anything is possible…unless it is impossible!
-- Updated September 21st, 2016, 12:12 pm to add the following --
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:Marsh8472 wrote:However, it is not universally agreed that there are any statements which are necessarily true.
* 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.
- Felix
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am
Re: Anything is possible
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Anything is possible
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.First of all, Fermat's theorem (FT) is a mathematical truth, not a logical one. Of course, in his proof Wiles used logical reasoning and logical inferences. Now we know that FT is true. You write that "before that time it was regarded as possibly false even though it was discovered later to be a necessary truth as you're calling it." Yes, mathematical truths are necessary truths, and before we knew that FT is (necessarily) true it was epistemically possible that it is false. Now it is no longer epistemically possible that it is false, since it is now known to be true. But even when it was epistemically possible for FT to be false, we knew that it is either (necessarily) true or (necessarily) false.
"We say that a proposition p is epistemically possible relative to what is known in an epistemic situation S just in case p is consistent with what is known in (or 'possible in view of what is known in') S."
(Dietz, Richard. "Epistemic Modals and Correct Disagreement." In Relative Truth, edited by Manuel Garcia-Carpintero and Max Kölbel, 239-264. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 240)
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.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").
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 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:
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.* 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.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Anything is possible
No rational, logical common sense here, that I can see.Felix--From a temporal standpoint, finite events are known successively, therefore anything is not possible in this realm.
Huh? No rational, logical common sense here, that I can see.From an eternal standpoint (what one might call a "god's eye view" ), events are known simultaneously, and therefore anything is possible
Still proposing infinite Universe, with no actual specifics as I have repeated put forward and not a shred of rational, logical common sense for your viewpoint. Not to mention-- again ---no shred of evidence.- in fact in an eternal and infinite universe, anything is not only possible but also probable.
Repeating irrational, illogical non-common sense will never make your viewpoints valid, Felix imho
r6
-- Updated September 21st, 2016, 5:56 pm to add the following --
I recieived private post from someone who did understand what any of my dots or dashs meant. The dots and dashes don't meant anything much that I'm aware of. If I recall correctly over the last hundred or more years of writing, people some times use dots and dashes in various ways as formatting filler for lists, outlines hierarchies etc.......r6....01a} local set--- ergo one-part of otherness, twoness, consciousness,
Seems pretty simple to me. In some forums the only way to create indentation or list with or gaps is put in some dots, as just placing space bar spaces will not work.
** ≠ ***
Ive used these a few times in this thread in response to Marsh specifically. These dots are also called asterisks. I used them as form of of set mathematics.
I will spell it out again, the first two asterisks-- or dots to some ---are 2 asterisks not equal too 3 asterisks. In my last post I was replying BG's post, hoping to make clear what is possible or not can be understood with simple visual or tactile sets/groups.
Most complex language or linguistics that he suggested is not necessary to express some obvious truths regarding what is possible, not possible, contradictory, valid or not valid etc.....
** >< ***Rr6 wrote:Our finite, eternally existent, occupied space Universe is dynamic, however, it does not move in relationship to anything else, except itself i.e. any of its parts or collective set thereof. In this sense, Universe is and unstoppable force.Burning ghost---Someone asked me what would happen if an unstoppable force met an unmovable object.
Within this context I above, we can improve upon your given scenario by replacing the words unmovable object with dynamic limits of local set of motion to any other local set of motion. Now we have;
.01} unstoppable occupied space Universe,
....01a} local set--- ergo one-part of otherness, twoness, consciousness,
....01b} local set---ergo a 2nd part of Universe as otherness, twoness, consciousness.
Or as Fuller states it, approximately,... 'we refined our definitions, so as to get closer to absolute truth'...
If the experience itself is an impossibility, which it is, then we'd need to assess what is meant by "impossible".
Finite metaphysical-1 limits, at minimum of absolute truths.
Finite physical/energy limits--- fermions and bosons ---
Finite occupied space limits--fermions, bosons, gravity and dark energy.
Contradiction is purely linguistical.
00 >< 000
{00}------{000}
( * * ) ----consciousness
( * | * ) ----2D Slice-of-Space
( * | * ) ---2D, Slice-of-Time
( * / * )------2D, Slice-of-Mind
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Anything is possible
I see nothing irrational with the idea of an eternal universe. Usually when people argue against it's because they think the idea of traversing an infinite amount of time before now is impossible without providing the proof. If we assume there was an infinite amount of time before now, I am unable to arrive at a contradiction. There are some inductive proofs for this:Still proposing infinite Universe, with no actual specifics as I have repeated put forward and not a shred of rational, logical common sense for your viewpoint. Not to mention-- again ---no shred of evidence.
Repeating irrational, illogical non-common sense will never make your viewpoints valid, Felix imho
r6
It is possible to traverse 1 year of time
If it is possible to traverse x years of time then it is possible to traverse x+1 years of time
Therefore it is possible to traverse any amount of time
Where people get tripped up I think is imagining an event an infinite amount of time before now which is mathematically impossible. In an eternal universe an event an infinite amount of time ago would not exist since there is no such number as "infinite". There would be events 1 year ago, a million years ago, trillion years ago, etc...
Just because ** appears different than *** does not mean they are. Just like 0.9999999... appears different than 1, people get tripped up on this thinking they are different too. According to conventional math 0.999999... = 1. If ≠ equals = then by substitution ** ≠ *** is equivalent to ** = ***. We can prove this by redefining what equals means and seeing it for ourselves. If the law of non-contradiction is false then this would also be a reality.I recieived private post from someone who did understand what any of my dots or dashs meant. The dots and dashes don't meant anything much that I'm aware of. If I recall correctly over the last hundred or more years of writing, people some times use dots and dashes in various ways as formatting filler for lists, outlines hierarchies etc.......
Seems pretty simple to me. In some forums the only way to create indentation or list with or gaps is put in some dots, as just placing space bar spaces will not work.
** ≠ ***
Ive used these a few times in this thread in response to Marsh specifically. These dots are also called asterisks. I used them as form of of set mathematics.
I will spell it out again, the first two asterisks-- or dots to some ---are 2 asterisks not equal too 3 asterisks. In my last post I was replying BG's post, hoping to make clear what is possible or not can be understood with simple visual or tactile sets/groups.
Most complex language or linguistics that he suggested is not necessary to express some obvious truths regarding what is possible, not possible, contradictory, valid or not valid etc.....
What we get from the law of non-contradiction is meaning. Without it, everything is meaningless. If meaning is a something subjective only and does not exist without minds it would make sense that the law of non-contradiction does not exist in the objective sense without minds. Like what someone said before, we did not really define what "exists" means either.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Anything is possible
You still have not given me a reason to unfoe you. I don't think you can either.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Anything Is Not Possible
And I was not referring to that specifically. Ive been clear in those regards in the past. Ive often stated, that, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I've been through all of this with Felix and others on other threads.Marsh8472--I see nothing irrational with the idea of an eternal universe.
As for the rest of your message it is more of your irrational, illogical and lacking common sense.
** does not equal ***.
I don't have much time or interest for irrational, illogical conversation. Sorry.
r6
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Anything Is Not Possible
Yes, sometimes philosophy goes into that realm of questioning what we consider to be common sense, illogical, or irrational. Especially in epistemology. Oh look that's where we are now isn't it?Rr6 wrote:And I was not referring to that specifically. Ive been clear in those regards in the past. Ive often stated, that, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I've been through all of this with Felix and others on other threads.Marsh8472--I see nothing irrational with the idea of an eternal universe.
As for the rest of your message it is more of your irrational, illogical and lacking common sense.
** does not equal ***.
I don't have much time or interest for irrational, illogical conversation. Sorry.
r6
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: Anything Is Not Possible
..."Philosophy--the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."...Marsh--Yes, sometimes philosophy goes into that realm of questioning what we consider to be common sense, illogical, or irrational. Especially in epistemology. Oh look that's where we are now isn't it?
Ergo, the above is the search for truth-- absolute and relative ---and this is what Ive offered from day one here at Philo. Specifically my cosmic hierarchy and my comments directly related to the cosmic hierarchy concept of existence { 1a, 1b, 1c }, reality { 2a, b, c } and knowledge{ absolute and relative }. Aka metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.
None have offered, for the most part, any rational, logical common sense that invalidates my givens, as stated, nor have they given, for the most part, any evidence to substantiate any claims of my givens being invalidate.
There has been some irrelevant, irrational, illogical viewpoints, as reply posts to my comments, as well as skewing of my givens as stated, and my intentions as stated. Whether others are misunderstanding or misrepresentation { skewing } of my intended meanings, is not always obvious, and other times it does appear to me to be intended skewing.
r6
Marsh8472 wrote:Rr6 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
And I was not referring to that specifically. Ive been clear in those regards in the past. Ive often stated, that, we live in an eternally existent, finite, occupied space Universe. I've been through all of this with Felix and others on other threads.
As for the rest of your message it is more of your irrational, illogical and lacking common sense.
** does not equal ***.
I don't have much time or interest for irrational, illogical conversation. Sorry.
-
- Posts: 112
- Joined: September 8th, 2012, 8:40 pm
Re: Anything Is Not Possible
Your ideas remind me of this scene from star trekRr6 wrote:..."Philosophy--the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline."...Marsh--Yes, sometimes philosophy goes into that realm of questioning what we consider to be common sense, illogical, or irrational. Especially in epistemology. Oh look that's where we are now isn't it?
Ergo, the above is the search for truth-- absolute and relative ---and this is what Ive offered from day one here at Philo. Specifically my cosmic hierarchy and my comments directly related to the cosmic hierarchy concept of existence { 1a, 1b, 1c }, reality { 2a, b, c } and knowledge{ absolute and relative }. Aka metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.
None have offered, for the most part, any rational, logical common sense that invalidates my givens, as stated, nor have they given, for the most part, any evidence to substantiate any claims of my givens being invalidate.
There has been some irrelevant, irrational, illogical viewpoints, as reply posts to my comments, as well as skewing of my givens as stated, and my intentions as stated. Whether others are misunderstanding or misrepresentation { skewing } of my intended meanings, is not always obvious, and other times it does appear to me to be intended skewing.
r6
Marsh8472 wrote: (Nested quote removed.)
[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 poeple thumb their noses at those sources as authorities too.
-- Updated September 22nd, 2016, 2:15 pm to add the following --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-O5dZ9BLLc
-- Updated September 22nd, 2016, 2:21 pm to add the following --
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023