Is impossibility possible?

[Ultrajoe]

The problem is that you're using one impossible situation to reason the certaianty of another. If we had an infinite amount of time and monkeys, certainly, but it's not in the realm of possibility. You can heap on circumstance to twist the situation, but then the initial situation becomes moot.

'Water involuntarily falling upwards' is impossible

If you change it to 'Water falling upwards under influnced conditions and under the power of the ingenuity of man and some very impressive thechnology is possible', then you have proved jack squat. Water still hasn't fall upwards involuntarily without motivation.

Really, it all comes down to something quite simple: The impossible is impossible. The moment you do something 'Impossible' it becomes possible, and the Impossible remains unachieved. It's a moving target, one you can't hit by default.

 

[cobra_ky]

i'm pretty sure a universal decrease in entropy is still impossible.

EDIT: dammit i didn't see the second page >.<

 

[Chicago Ted]

Erm... I kinda realized this form of thinking at 12... Instead of the monkeys though I thought about the universe, and that if infinite, there must be thousands of worlds EXACTLY like ours and therefore must have been a world that Pokemon were real...

 

[Avatar Roku]

Yes, possibility has to be possible, because impossibility being impossible is a paradox.

 

[Ultrajoe]

If 0 was definite and 1 was a simple 'no' then anything that's 'impossible' falls at 0.999... it's quite simple.

0.999... = 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789]

*Shakes fist*

For the last bleeding time, it doesn't. It's just so utterly, insignificantly different as to make no difference for any possible application! /Ultraexplosion

 

[Maze1125]

If one is moving very fast relative to the other, and they stay that way, symmetry is maintained.
A will see B stay young and B will see A stay young.
The asymmetry only occurs when one changes their reference frame.
So, if B slows down and returns to A at the same speed in the other direction, A will have aged and B will have stayed young. But this only happens because B changed reference frame.

What do you mean by reference frame?

Is it the direction of travel, such that if B continues on in a straight line forever, they age equally?

No, they don't age equally, they age symmetrically, which is different.
Relative to A, B stays young, while A ages.
Relative to B, A stays young, while B ages.
Assuming they remain moving apart.

Also, why is it B that ages? Since they're moving relative to each other, why can't it be A that ages instead?

When B gets back, he has had to accelerate to do that, that is what messes up the symmetry.
B has accelerated, A hasn't. So they aren't the same relative to each other any more.

 

[vede]

Actually, it is possible for some event to be impossible.

Look at the laws of physics.

For example: Law of Inertia. It is impossible for some object in uniform motion to change its state of motion without some outside force.

So, it is impossible for, for example, a stone, moving in space, to stop moving in space unless it is confronted with a gravitational pull, friction against particles in space, or solid material blocking it, or some other thing you might find in space.

See? Easy.

 

[ViolentlyHappy91]

If 0 was definite and 1 was a simple 'no' then anything that's 'impossible' falls at 0.999... it's quite simple.

0.999... = 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789]

Yeah, I know the theory, and I know that it's pretty much true, but I was going on more of a logical sense, you know, the fact that it's almost there, but not quite.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Erm... I kinda realized this form of thinking at 12... Instead of the monkeys though I thought about the universe, and that if infinite, there must be thousands of worlds EXACTLY like ours and therefore must have been a world that Pokemon were real...

It's a nice thought, but not an accurate one. It's temping to fall into the pit of reasoning that somewhere in the infinite universe there must be a hippo on a unicycle singing opera as he wheels his way across the stars... but it's a pit. For a much better explanation of why it's wrong and why you shouldn't let it upset you, get ye some Terry Pratchetts 'Science Of Discworld'

 

[Maze1125]

If 0 was definite and 1 was a simple 'no' then anything that's 'impossible' falls at 0.999... it's quite simple.

0.999... = 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789]

*Shakes fist*

For the last bleeding time, it doesn't. It's just so utterly, insignificantly different as to make no difference for any possible application! /Ultraexplosion

Except there are definitive rigorous proofs that disagree with you.

Yeah, I know the theory, and I know that it's pretty much true, but I was going on more of a logical sense, you know, the fact that it's almost there, but not quite.

The mathematical proofs that prove they are the same are based entirely on logic.
It's vague thinking that suggests they are different.

 

[Alex_P]

The problem there is that there is no such thing as 0 probability for something to happen. It may be 1 x 10^-2 quadrillion, but the chance of it occurring is still there. Just because we haven't experienced yet does not make it impossible.

Depends on whether you subscribe to a subjective or objective Bayesian perspective.

You could say that your belief about a future event can never be absolutely certain, but perhaps future events themselves can have 0 probability (depending on how you think of probability outside of an observer's beliefs -- that's really an issue of metaphysics).

-- Alex

 

[Mozared]

Like my friend said;
"How on earth are you going to keep 3000 monkeys alive to work on typewriters for infinity?"

You do pose an interesting question, really. Not neccissarily in the last 2 sentences of your post, but rather in the middle bit. It would technically mean that somewhere in the universe, sometime, something is going to happen. The mind wobbles.

 

[vede]

If 0 was definite and 1 was a simple 'no' then anything that's 'impossible' falls at 0.999... it's quite simple.

0.999... = 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789]

*Shakes fist*

For the last bleeding time, it doesn't. It's just so utterly, insignificantly different as to make no difference for any possible application! /Ultraexplosion

Except there are definitive rigorous proofs that disagree with you.

I think this is a matter of how people view numbers.

There are some who view math simply as "math," independent of reality.

There are others who view math as only a representation of reality.

In the first, 1/3=0.333, 1/3*3=1, therefore 0.333*3=1, therefore 0.999=1

In the second, whether or not you can prove something via mathematical operations doesn't make it actually true, because it's a matter of reality.

In a purely mathematical sense, 0.999=1. In an actuality sense, 0.999<1.

The same thing occurs when you look at x^0=1. It has a mathematical proof, but if you look at it from a physical viewpoint x^0 represents you having an equation with nothing in it, thus representing an undefined value OR zero. (Not both.)

If you ask me, people who say things like "0.999=1 because blah-blah-blah" aren't actually dealing with reality, and are, in effect, achieving the same thing they would achieve by playing John Conway's Game of Life by hand; simply playing with numbers for no good reason.

The worst are the people who claim that the universe actually follows the results they get while playing around with their numbers. A stone with 0.999...mol X has the same mass as a stone with 1mol X. It's ridiculous.

 

[Maze1125]

If 0 was definite and 1 was a simple 'no' then anything that's 'impossible' falls at 0.999... it's quite simple.

0.999... = 1 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.85789]

*Shakes fist*

For the last bleeding time, it doesn't. It's just so utterly, insignificantly different as to make no difference for any possible application! /Ultraexplosion

Except there are definitive rigorous proofs that disagree with you.

I think this is a matter of how people view numbers.

There are some who view math simply as "math," independent of reality.

There are others who view math as a representation of reality.

In the first, 1/3=0.333, 1/3*3=1, therefore 0.333*3=1, therefore 0.999=1

In the second, whether or not you can prove something via mathematical operations doesn't make it actually true, because it's a matter of reality.

In a purely mathematical sense, 0.999=1. In an actuality sense, 0.999<1.

The same thing occurs when you look at x^0=1. It has a mathematical proof, but if you look at it from a physical viewpoint x^0 represents you having an equation with nothing in it, thus representing an undefined value OR zero. (Not both.)

I have a response to this, but it would be better not to clog this thread up, so could you repost it in the other one please?

 

[Ultrajoe]

Except there are definitive rigorous proofs that disagree with you.

The worst are the people who claim that the universe actually follows the results they get while playing around with their numbers. A stone with 0.999...mol X has the same mass as a stone with 1mol X. It's ridiculous.

That says it more eloquently than i was going to say it. Addmitedly, i was going to say 'There's definitive and rigorously persistent reality and fact to counter it', which is just unhelpful.

 

[acturisme]

On an infinite timescale, anything and everything is possible and will happen eventually,

That's not true.
Provided the probability of the event decreases over time, you can have an event that is possible for all time but nevertheless isn't certain to happen.

could you cite an example of such an event?

Anything with exponential decay.
For example, if you got a sample of radioactive material and put up a target for the particles of radiation to hit. That may never happen, because less particles are put out over time, but at any given time a particle may still be released and it may be in the right direction.

I have another paradoxical theory to pose to the people of this thread:

Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, where 2 people, A and B, being the exact same age were separated, one traveling at near-light speed while the other remained stationary for a number of years. At the end of this period, the one staying stationary is old, while the traveler is relatively young, due to the relation between time and movement or somesuch.

My idea comes into play near the beginning. If, as all the physicists I've asked say, the only relation we take into account is the relative speeds of A and B, why do they age differently?

Relative to A, B is moving at near-light speed, while relative to B, A is moving at near-light speed. Thus, they should age at the same rate, as relative to the other, they are stationary and the other is the one moving. When I ask my physics professors about this, I ask if it's in relation to a fixed point in the universe, but every one has said that is not the case and then given me a very confused look.

I've always been confused by this, and have never received an adequate explanation.

If one is moving very fast relative to the other, and they stay that way, symmetry is maintained.
A will see B stay young and B will see A stay young.
The asymmetry only occurs when one changes their reference frame.
So, if B slows down and returns to A at the same speed in the other direction, A will have aged and B will have stayed young. But this only happens because B changed reference frame.

Ok but these are specific event scenarios. If you set up enough scenarios of similar type you then get a probability that may approach or exceed 1 for a short time for AN event to occour before the entire system decays into probable oblivion.

 

[Maze1125]

Ok but these are specific event scenarios. If you set up enough scenarios of similar type you then get a probability that may approach or exceed 1 for a short time for AN event to occour before the entire system decays into probable oblivion.

I don't see how that's relevant.
It's still true that there are things which are possible for all time and yet may never happen.

Also, probabilities can never exceed 1.

 

[Seldon2639]

There are very few things which can be completely impossible, mostly things which are contradictions in terms. For most of the other "impossible" things, it's simply a sufficiently small probability as to render them close enough. You can't dehydrate water (it's impossible), unless you want to be cute and say that air is dehydrated water, just add water and you have water.

I have another paradoxical theory to pose to the people of this thread:

Einstein proposed the theory of relativity, where 2 people, A and B, being the exact same age were separated, one traveling at near-light speed while the other remained stationary for a number of years. At the end of this period, the one staying stationary is old, while the traveler is relatively young, due to the relation between time and movement or somesuch.

My idea comes into play near the beginning. If, as all the physicists I've asked say, the only relation we take into account is the relative speeds of A and B, why do they age differently?

Relative to A, B is moving at near-light speed, while relative to B, A is moving at near-light speed. Thus, they should age at the same rate, as relative to the other, they are stationary and the other is the one moving. When I ask my physics professors about this, I ask if it's in relation to a fixed point in the universe, but every one has said that is not the case and then given me a very confused look.

I've always been confused by this, and have never received an adequate explanation.

You're getting tripped up on the difference between relative speed and absolute speed. Speed as a scalar quantity, and velocity as a vector quantity. You don't mean to take the relative speeds into account, but the relative velocity, and they aren't the same. If I go running away from you, your speed is zero (even relative to me), while my speed is whatever my running speed is. Your velocity relative to me is negative (since we're using the change in distance divided by the change in time), while your speed (measured by your change in distance from your last position divided by the time changed) is zero.

 

[Alex_P]

My idea comes into play near the beginning. If, as all the physicists I've asked say, the only relation we take into account is the relative speeds of A and B, why do they age differently?

Good question. There's no symmetry between them because the twin in the rocket ship isn't in an inertial frame -- the ship has to accelerate and decelerate in order to leave Earth and come back.

The Wikipedia articles has some relativistic Doppler shift diagrams you may find useful [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox].

-- Alex

 

[Cpt. Red]

Also your wrong with everything being possible. For example, what is the probability for something that cannot happen to happen? Well its zero of course. Even if you give it an infinite tries it simply will not happen as. Another example may be what is the possibility of something we know is true(without any doubts) to be false. This to is zero as well.

I hope you have gotten my point.

The problem there is that there is no such thing as 0 probability for something to happen. It may be 1 x 10^-2 quadrillion, but the chance of it occurring is still there. Just because we haven't experienced yet does not make it impossible.

Then what probability would you give to that 1000 monkeys with 1000 typewriters to write Shakespeare's Hamlet if they need to start over every time they have written one character?