Impossibilities

[Biochemist]

Stable parental care is advantageous to the offspring. Love facilitates this (although not always).

 

Morality is useful in a social setting. All social animals have a hierarchy and a sytem to maintain order. A moral system does this.

 

Creativity exists, IMO, in two forms....

All good points, FT, and I think you have succinctly captured the core Naturalism precepts here. My point was that in a Naturalitstic model, these perceptions are derived from deterministic precursors. This means that, in "truth", there really is no morality or love, just the perception of it.

 

This would mean that there is really no basis to be disgusted by Charles Manson, Ted Bundy or Caligula. We would just see these behaviors as the end points of each individual's respective determinism. Further, if we understand that these feelings are purely deterministic, one could argue that we really ought to purge ourselves of them, because things like love or disgust (in my examples) cloud our perceptions and our abilities to make "rational" decisions.

 

Personally, I am not trying to eradicate love from my life.

[TINNY]

All good points, FT, and I think you have succinctly captured the core Naturalism precepts here. My point was that in a Naturalitstic model, these perceptions are derived from deterministic precursors. This means that, in "truth", there really is no morality or love, just the perception of it.

 

This would mean that there is really no basis to be disgusted ...We would just see these behaviors as the end points of each individual's respective determinism... we really ought to purge ourselves of them, because things like love or disgust (in my examples) cloud our perceptions and our abilities to make "rational" decisions.

 

Personally, I am not trying to eradicate love from my life.

Biochemist, I love it!

[sciman55]

That should do it. Thanks guys!

[TeleMad]

That should do it. Thanks guys!

 

No one gave any of the most obvious ones, from math.

 

1) 1 = 2

 

2) a probability greater than 1 or less than 0

 

3) for the length of one side of a triangle to be greater than or equal to the sum of the lengths of the other two sides (in Euclidean geometry)

 

etc.

[TINNY]

Hey, but nothing is impossible!

[infamous]

Hey, but nothing is impossible!

 

 

Ah, but one thing I believe to be impossible: To prove to anyone someting they refuse to accept as a possibility.

[gamefreek_01]

tinny yes nothing is impossible but only within the limits of reality, yuo cannot travel time, yuo may in games or storys but not in reality. yes there are many math impossiblities toom any to count. also id like to say that light speed travel like in star trek is imppssooible. and invisiblity on earth is inpossible but in space its easy. just not perfect. and also time travel is impossilbe, and free will doesnt even exist so yuo really cant even say its possible or not its not even there.

[emessay]

1. Improbable but our mind want it !!

Traveling to nearest star Proxima Centaurus 268,000 AU with manned space-ship speed of 250,000 km/hour requires 18,356 years --> a climbing mount of improbable !!

 

2. Probable but our mind do not care it !!

Establishing whole world with enough food and medicine and possible free, establishing whole world with free telecomunication dreaming earth as one race of humanity, annihilating all nuke weapons from earth --> a paradox climbing mount of impossible !!

 

Should science now urgently self-declares that there is 'improbable physical unit' in this space time ?

[sergey500]

I think anything is possible. Well in science that is, i believe in science there is nothing that is impossible, improbable, most likely, but impossible, never. Unlike in math where plenty of things are impossible, science doesn't have any real boundries

Some things said that are impossibe and i would try to disprove.

To know what is outside the observable universe.

-Maybe at 100% of your brain power you can mentally go outside your body and see see for yourself

To make pigs fly.

-On a plane. Or genetic manipulation.

To make a starship fly at light speed.

-Some new mode of energy, instead of combostion and stronger metal in the future.

To be your own biological father...

-Uh...time travel maybe...i dunno...

To have your cake and eat it too...

-cake eating itself...hm...make it alive and break it apart, it will eats it other half (i dunno, i am trying at least)

To juggle with 25 balls for half an hour

-hm...who knows, plenty of people did unbelievable things, pulling a plane for ex.

to know that you are the smartest being ever existed

-Well nobody really knows what it means to be the smartest, because you need different smarts for everything

to prove the inexistence of a god

-debating right now

to fly (without LSD and friends)

-on a plane maybe?

to say something that can be interpreted in only one way

-What language?

A wind to blow out the sun.....

- solar wind maybe?

 

first page of impossiblities just became possible, or so i tried at least.

[Taraxanoid]

Anything is possible if you think of the Universe being a mere segment of a whole, a Multiverse. But of course, when we don't know the answer to a problem or an explanation, a lot of the time we state it as being impossible. That is why we created the notion of possibility - science is about truths and finding the truths. When a truth seems too far or farfetched to become a 'truth' it is classified an impossibility. It seems we are getting stuck in our own ways of thinking, rather than looking outside our own thoughts.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Tis impossible to discuss religion/philosophy/or environmental issues without it ending up in a long drawn out arguement.....particularly here:hihi:

[Rade]

I think anything is possible. Well in science that is, i believe in science there is nothing that is impossible, improbable, most likely, but impossible, never. Unlike in math where plenty of things are impossible, science doesn't have any real boundries.

Not true according to Max Planck, and now the corner stone upon which all quantum theory rests. As accepted by current sciences of physics and chemistry, it is very much impossible that any human measurement of space or time can now, or in the future, be smaller than the Planck constant (h). The outcome of the use of reason (rational thought) by Planck to arrive at (h) is most likely the single most important scientific discovery in human history--the impossible, as relates to human understanding of existence, exists.

 

What quantum theory tells us is, if there is an existence at a scale <(h), it will forever be impossible for humans to know it. I'm not clear on whether or not (h) implies that existence itself in any form is impossible at a scale < (h) ? I mean, can humans image a universe where (h) is the upper limit, that it is impossible that anything exists at a scale > (h) ?

[lawcat]

there is nothing that is impossible.

 

I believe that too. LOL. Indeed, nothing is impossible.

[Rade]

Indeed, ...nothing is impossible.

Hi again. I take it you are saying that it is not possible to have "nothing", that only "thing" is possible. Perhaps not so clear.

 

For example, Sartre, in his book, "Being and Nothingness" offers these definitions:

 

* Being (être): Including both Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself, but the latter is the nihilation of the former. Being is objective not subjective or individual.

 

* Being-in-itself (être-en-soi): Non-conscious Being. The Being of the phenomenon that is greater than the knowledge that we have of it.

 

* Being-for-itself (être-pour-soi): The nihilation of Being-in-itself; consciousness conceived as a lack of Being, a desire for Being, a relation of Being. The For-itself brings Nothingness into the world and therefore can stand out from Being and judge other beings by knowing what it is not.

 

* Nothingness (néant): Although not having being, it is supported by being. It comes into the world by the For-itself.

 

* Reflection (reflet): The form in which the For-itself founds its own nothingness through the dyad of "the-reflection-reflecting"

 

==

 

As seen, nothing is presented as the logical consequence of having a lack of being.

 

==

 

I am now reading about Dirac and his famous equation, and it is interesting how the forum thread topics so often overlap. So, consider how Dirac came to think about his equation that predicted that the electron e- must have an energy opposite e+ (which came to be called the positron, a type of antimatter). The way that Dirac mentally made sense of the e+ is to suggest that it is a "hole" (i.e., a nothingness) within a sea of negative energy. Then, when the hole is filled with something (energy), the nothingness of the hole becomes the e+, the positron (a thing that exists). So, here, nothingness is not only possible, it is required by the Dirac Equation as one valid explanation for antimatter electron e+ (well, it was his explanation and it works for fermions).

 

Another example: you plan to meet a friend at a place, but when you arrive they are not present, in fact, they never show. At some moment while you wait they become to your mind a nothingness, an expectation not fulfilled--the nothing has become very possible for you, it is your new reality.

 

I think many things are impossible, but nothingness is not one of them.

 

Any comments appreciated.

[lawcat]

Rade, I apologize for not following Sartre. I never studied him, and in-itself and for-itself is hard for me to understand.

 

Nothing is a logical invention. There are two logical nothings, absolute and relative. Relative nothing is the devoid of something. Absolute nothing is the devoid of everything.

 

I agree with you that relatively speaking there can be nothing--it is possible. However, absolute nothing must be impossible.

 

If everything includes absolute nothing, and if absolute nothing is devoid of everything, then nothing is the devoid of nothing, and that is an impossibility.

 

Finally, if Dirac suggests that we can experimentally find nothing, he is a looney.

[Rade]

Nothing is a logical invention. There are two logical nothings, absolute and relative. Relative nothing is the devoid of something. Absolute nothing is the devoid of everything. I agree with you that relatively speaking there can be nothing--it is possible. However, absolute nothing must be impossible. Finally, if Dirac suggests that we can experimentally find nothing, he is a looney.

Yes, it seems correct that there should be two logical nothings, thanks for the clarification. Sartre then would only be talking about relative nothingness, not absolute (?). As for Dirac, he would refer also to relative nothing, which as you say is a possibility. Thus, the Dirac hole is a relative nothing, not a absolute nothing. We cannot allow a genius such as Dirac be a looney--thus the relative nothing of the Dirac sea hole is the devoid of something--negative energy--and it was experimentally verified to be the positron e+.

 

So, to expand on your comment, if logically there must be two logical "nothings", it seems reasonable that there also would be two logical "somethings". So, the following propositions perhaps (?--open for discussion):

 

1. Relative nothing is the devoid of some thing = possible (the expectation of the other not fulfilled)

 

2. Absolute nothing is the devoid of every thing = impossible (Lawcat argument: If everything includes absolute nothing, and if absolute nothing is devoid of everything, then nothing is the devoid of nothing, and that is an impossibility)

 

3. Relative something is the devoid of some nothing = possible (Einstein Special Relativity Theory...absolute time is nothing...or there is no absolute time)

 

4. Absolute something is the devoid of every nothing = impossible (given #1 that a relative nothing is possible)

 

Possible conclusion--only the absolute is impossible

 

Corollary: God either not an absolute something or impossible :)

 

Let me know where I error.

[lawcat]

Thus, the Dirac hole is a relative nothing, not a absolute nothing. We cannot allow a genius such as Dirac be a looney--thus the relative nothing of the Dirac sea hole is the devoid of something--negative energy--and it was experimentally verified to be the positron e+.

Yes, and this comes up frequently in wave dynamics, such as cancellation of mechanical waves.

 

 

 

3. Relative something is the devoid of some nothing = possible (Einstein Special Relativity Theory...absolute time is nothing...or there is no absolute time)

 

Let's do it this way. Let's define relative nothing as: some nothing = void of something.

Then from the quote, "something is the void of some nothing" can be written as: Something is the void of "the void of something." That "void of the void of something" = something itself. Therefore, something is something itself, which is true.

 

4. Absolute something is the devoid of every nothing = impossible (given #1 that a relative nothing is possible)

 

Let's rewrite this as well: Absolute something is the void of every "void of something." If the void of every void of something = absolute something, then Absolute something is itself, which is true and possible. I would call such absolute something everything. Within 100 percent certainty there is everything which is itself and contains no nothing. Not even relative nothing. The reason is that relative nothing is still something, for it can not be absolute nothing. However, there can be absolute something, and that is everything.