What is Impossibility? – Gentleman Thinker

It was interesting. But may I know the definition of impossibility argument from the point of view atheism

🦋

Note that logical impossibility depends entirely upon the definition of words. A "married bachelor" makes perfect sense if by "bachelor" you mean "someone who lives akin to Baccus", i.e. a life of sex, drugs, and rock and roll. Such a person can quite logically be married, sterotyped be damned. Likewise, a "square triangle" makes perfect sense if by "square" you mean "right-angled": that's just what we would ordinarily call a right triangle. There's probably a way of constructing some axiomatic system such that 3+3=8 given that system's meanings of "3", "+", "=" and "8", even.

I would argue that physical impossibilities are actually stronger than logical impossibilities, because our ideas of "logic" change over time. 100 years ago, the idea that a particle could be both a wave and a particle at the same time, or that 1 person can see events A and B happening simultaneously whilst another doesn't (with both of them being equally correct) would have seemed like a logical impossibility. And yet this is exactly what quantum physics and general relativity implies is true.

Sure, our idea of what constitutes a "physical impossibility" can also change over time as we learn more about physics. However, for certain laws which we are fairly certain r fundamental (e.g. Conservation of Energy), a situation that would violate it completely is ACTUALLY impossible, and seemingly more so than a "logical" one.

60 crumpets in a second had be burst out laughing

But a square does indeed have 3 sides. In order to have 4 sides, you must have all number of sides that is lower than 4. If you disregard the extra side, a square is a triangle because the definition "a triangle has 3 sides" encompasses all polygons of 3 or higher sides, which in turn, means all polygons are triangles.

To rectify this, you should define a triangle as "A polygon with no more or no fewer than 3 sides." In fact the fewer can be removed from the definition because all polygons have at least 3 sides.

Now just join with The Gentleman Physicist and be all gentle up in this channel, and talk about philosophy and science and stuff!

Wrong, I have a 5 sided triangle. It's here, right in front of me on my desk…

ogically impossible is, however, strictly speaking, all that is not himself and therefore only accepts as part of his self-perception.

What's the music he's using?

Darude – Sandstrom. Great thanks.

Now what's the Cello playing in the background?

Something I've been thinking about recently: Can the existence of an object be 'possibly impossible', or 'probably impossible', or some other such combination of modal operators? Obviously, something cannot be both impossible and possible at the same time; I'm wondering if the 'impossiblity' of an object itself can be possible. I am also not talking about physical impossibility but, rather, logical impossibility.

Firstly, a discussion of what this might imply, in particular with regards to the question of whether abstract objects exist which you've already discussed. Suppose we think of possibility as a property, or a predicate. If we say that something's 'impossibility' is possible or impossible, then we are assigning to it a property. By my understanding of the notion of 'existence,' if something has properties, then it must exist. Therefore, impossibility exists; therefore, at least one abstract object must exist! 

I can think of a reason why this might be the case. By asking whether something 'can' be the case, we are asking whether it is conceivable, which seems to me to be the same thing as asking whether it is possible. Therefore, when we ask whether something can be possible, we are assuming that there can be such a thing as impossibility. Therefore, we are implying that impossibility is possible.

Anyway, ramble ramble ramble. If you understood any of that wall of text, do you have any thoughts?

Wait, if 3+3 = 8
That would mean that LOGIC reigns over Mathematics.
After all, elementary arithmetic have the ZFC axioms, wich are "logical" in a sense, but you could imagine that 3+3=12 if you define different axioms, so it isn´t impossible. IT IS however if you assume strictly the ZFC, but that would mean accepting a belief that the ZFC axioms represent the "true" arithmetic. 

What category would 'thinking of a new colour' fall into? I'm assuming it's the logical impossibility right, but is it contradictory?

Hi Olly! This was very interesting. Possibility is a recurring word in my vocabulary, so it was nice to see (and hear) your take on Impossibility (the other end or side of it, I guess). Thanks!

you need to pump your brakes on all that meme shit

A logical impossibility is stronger than a physical one? Seriously! A subjective purely abstract idea stronger than something empirically testable. I think the Gentleman Thinker has had one too many aperitifs.

No Quantum Physics is not contradictory. The particle does not become itself constituently a wave as still is a particle.