Is impossibility possible?

[Saul B]

Also, a side-note: The monkeys would die, and there will never be an infinite timespan in which monkeys can live.

For the purposes of this example, monkeys live forever.

 

[ThreeWords]

Damn! Now its only a matter of time till someone proves that 1+1=4, using a perpetual motion that falls upwards. At least if he eats his own head he won't be able to say so...

I've proved 1+1=4 too. Go to this thread. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.111279] Since I've shown 1=-1 then 2=0 so 4=2=1+1 QED.

Um, it does say someone pointed out what went wrong, thus implying that is is wrong. Or have you corrected it?
I can't see the point of using a piece of evidence that is, by the authors admission, flawed

Also, you haven't yet eaten your head!

 

[Zombie_Fish]

No. There are many things that are impossible, not because it's unlikly, but because it truly cannot be done:

You cannot eat your own head
You cannot fall upwards
You cannot create a perpetual motion machine
You cannot make heat travel from a cold thing to a hot thing
You cannot make 1+1=4 (in conventional maths)

What you have said is right, but only concerning things within the metaphorical rulebook of the universe. The things I have said are impossible, either because they are logically paradoxes or because they break the laws of physics.

Ah, there is no evidence prooving that you can never do it, as it is impossible to prove that something is impossible (Such as God not existing is impossible to proove). You could, in theory, do all of those things, as you can't predict that something may never happen, as it could always happen. You could do all of those things, you could even proove 100% that it is impossible to do a certian thing, nothing is impossible.

Sounds weird, deep, illogical, philosophical, stupid, confusing etc. I know, but if you find this confusing you should see my RE teacher.

 

[ThreeWords]

No. There are many things that are impossible, not because it's unlikly, but because it truly cannot be done:

You cannot eat your own head
You cannot fall upwards
You cannot create a perpetual motion machine
You cannot make heat travel from a cold thing to a hot thing
You cannot make 1+1=4 (in conventional maths)

What you have said is right, but only concerning things within the metaphorical rulebook of the universe. The things I have said are impossible, either because they are logically paradoxes or because they break the laws of physics.

Ah, there is no evidence prooving that you can never do it, as it is impossible to prove that something is impossible (Such as God not existing is impossible to proove). You could, in theory, do all of those things, as you can't predict that something may never happen, as it could always happen. You could do all of those things, you could even proove 100% that it is impossible to do a certian thing, nothing is impossible.

Sounds weird, deep, illogical, philosophical, stupid, confusing etc. I know, but if you find this confusing you should see my RE teacher.

The main problem is the laws of physics. Some people go by the rule of 'nothing is fixed, the laws could change at any random time' and following that logic, yes, anything at all could happen. But the thing is, in this universe, following these physical rules, some things can be impossible, ie perpetual motion.

You could argue that a wormhole could open inside the machine, giving it a source of infinite power, but the thing is, it wouldn't be perpetual, because it has to have no outside help, and without outside help, all machine run out of energy, no matter how efficient they are.
It's like causing pi=3. It doesn't work, because pi cannot be 3 and still be the ratio of circumference to diameter

 

[Zombie_Fish]

No. There are many things that are impossible, not because it's unlikly, but because it truly cannot be done:

You cannot eat your own head
You cannot fall upwards
You cannot create a perpetual motion machine
You cannot make heat travel from a cold thing to a hot thing
You cannot make 1+1=4 (in conventional maths)

What you have said is right, but only concerning things within the metaphorical rulebook of the universe. The things I have said are impossible, either because they are logically paradoxes or because they break the laws of physics.

Ah, there is no evidence prooving that you can never do it, as it is impossible to prove that something is impossible (Such as God not existing is impossible to proove). You could, in theory, do all of those things, as you can't predict that something may never happen, as it could always happen. You could do all of those things, you could even proove 100% that it is impossible to do a certian thing, nothing is impossible.

Sounds weird, deep, illogical, philosophical, stupid, confusing etc. I know, but if you find this confusing you should see my RE teacher.

The main problem is the laws of physics. Some people go by the rule of 'nothing is fixed, the laws could change at any random time' and following that logic, yes, anything at all could happen. But the thing is, in this universe, following these physical rules, some things can be impossible, ie perpetual motion.

You could argue that a wormhole could open inside the machine, giving it a source of infinite power, but the thing is, it wouldn't be perpetual, because it has to have no outside help, and without outside help, all machine run out of energy, no matter how efficient they are.
It's like causing pi=3. It doesn't work, because pi cannot be 3 and still be the ratio of circumference to diameter

That's where my arguement faulters. There is possibility that the laws of physics don't change, and that the things listed would be impossible.

You see, this is what I hate about my RE teacher. He can place a chair on a table and still argue that the chair doesn't exist.

 

[Insert Funny Name Here]

I suppose the only thing to say is that there will never be a infinite time span.

Not true. If the universe is infinite as many Philosphers suggest, then it is a certainty that the earth exsists somewhere else in the universe with you doing exactly the same thing you are now. If you think that maybe once you die, you are born against a billion light years away, it is technically possible to say that infite time scales are accessable. Just extremely hard to control.

 

[ThreeWords]

No. There are many things that are impossible, not because it's unlikly, but because it truly cannot be done:

You cannot eat your own head
You cannot fall upwards
You cannot create a perpetual motion machine
You cannot make heat travel from a cold thing to a hot thing
You cannot make 1+1=4 (in conventional maths)

What you have said is right, but only concerning things within the metaphorical rulebook of the universe. The things I have said are impossible, either because they are logically paradoxes or because they break the laws of physics.

Ah, there is no evidence prooving that you can never do it, as it is impossible to prove that something is impossible (Such as God not existing is impossible to proove). You could, in theory, do all of those things, as you can't predict that something may never happen, as it could always happen. You could do all of those things, you could even proove 100% that it is impossible to do a certian thing, nothing is impossible.

Sounds weird, deep, illogical, philosophical, stupid, confusing etc. I know, but if you find this confusing you should see my RE teacher.

The main problem is the laws of physics. Some people go by the rule of 'nothing is fixed, the laws could change at any random time' and following that logic, yes, anything at all could happen. But the thing is, in this universe, following these physical rules, some things can be impossible, ie perpetual motion.

You could argue that a wormhole could open inside the machine, giving it a source of infinite power, but the thing is, it wouldn't be perpetual, because it has to have no outside help, and without outside help, all machine run out of energy, no matter how efficient they are.
It's like causing pi=3. It doesn't work, because pi cannot be 3 and still be the ratio of circumference to diameter

That's where my arguement faulters. There is possibility that the laws of physics don't change, and that the things listed would be impossible.

You see, this is what I hate about my RE teacher. He can place a chair on a table and still argue that the chair doesn't exist.

I have done the same myself. It is hilarious to ask people to prove the chair exits, and then defeat their efforts.

But we are still talking cross purposes. For the laws of physics to change, the very way that everything interacts with everything else, how it is formed, even the very nature of its existence, must change, and I think that is impossible, because there is nothing that could cause such a massive change, throughout the entire universe, without being outside the universe, ie God, and though I believe in God, I don't think he does random changes like that. As Einstein said, "God does not play dice"

 

[Zombie_Fish]

No. There are many things that are impossible, not because it's unlikly, but because it truly cannot be done:

You cannot eat your own head
You cannot fall upwards
You cannot create a perpetual motion machine
You cannot make heat travel from a cold thing to a hot thing
You cannot make 1+1=4 (in conventional maths)

What you have said is right, but only concerning things within the metaphorical rulebook of the universe. The things I have said are impossible, either because they are logically paradoxes or because they break the laws of physics.

Ah, there is no evidence prooving that you can never do it, as it is impossible to prove that something is impossible (Such as God not existing is impossible to proove). You could, in theory, do all of those things, as you can't predict that something may never happen, as it could always happen. You could do all of those things, you could even proove 100% that it is impossible to do a certian thing, nothing is impossible.

Sounds weird, deep, illogical, philosophical, stupid, confusing etc. I know, but if you find this confusing you should see my RE teacher.

The main problem is the laws of physics. Some people go by the rule of 'nothing is fixed, the laws could change at any random time' and following that logic, yes, anything at all could happen. But the thing is, in this universe, following these physical rules, some things can be impossible, ie perpetual motion.

You could argue that a wormhole could open inside the machine, giving it a source of infinite power, but the thing is, it wouldn't be perpetual, because it has to have no outside help, and without outside help, all machine run out of energy, no matter how efficient they are.
It's like causing pi=3. It doesn't work, because pi cannot be 3 and still be the ratio of circumference to diameter

That's where my arguement faulters. There is possibility that the laws of physics don't change, and that the things listed would be impossible.

You see, this is what I hate about my RE teacher. He can place a chair on a table and still argue that the chair doesn't exist.

I have done the same myself. It is hilarious to ask people to prove the chair exits, and then defeat their efforts.

But we are still talking cross purposes. For the laws of physics to change, the very way that everything interacts with everything else, how it is formed, even the very nature of its existence, must change, and I think that is impossible, because there is nothing that could cause such a massive change, throughout the entire universe, without being outside the universe, ie God, and though I believe in God, I don't think he does random changes like that. As Einstein said, "God does not play dice"

That's why my arguement doesn't work still. For the things to become possible, you must change the whole of the universe, and the odds of that happening by mere chance are almost infinite, and the only power strong enough to change the effect of the universe would be that of God. I'm agnostic, so I'm neutral in the whole God arguement thing, but although in theory, he doesn't do random changes to the world, that is based entirely on beliefs, and I respect the beliefs on either side and try to avoid getting into debates like this as a result. If I had to pick one, I would most likely go for the idea that God doesn't play dice, as there has to be some logic to why God does it, as everything is logical to God (aka The All-knowing), even changing the universe would have a purpose to God, say he chose to do it.

Man, this thread is getting deep...

 

[TAGM]

I see what you're getting at. If imposibility is impossible, then it actualy IS possible. But there's nothing to actualy make the possibility for imposibility make imposibility imposible again.
In leyman's terms, this isn't actualy a paradoxic loop, it's just a claim that is wrong proving a claim that is right. Still, I'm not saying you're stupid for not seeing it, as I'm not really sure if it makes sence myself. It's still an interesting topic, either way.

 

[Goldeneye103X2]

You have waaaaaay to much time to think.

 

[Splunge]

To answer this question we first consider the universe as a system. This system is governed by the laws of physics, covering thermodynamics, gravity, quantum states, and so on. There are also a whole bunch of constants, things like the Plank distance, and the speed of light.
These rules govern everything which can and can't occur within the universe. If an event is conceived of which does not fit into the laws which govern the universe, then that event is impossible, as it cannot occur within the framework of the universal system.
To put it another way, let's say the universe is a game. The game has rules. In this instance, we will consider a game in which you must pick a number from a finite set, let's say... 1 to 10. It is impossible for you to pick 11. This is not to say that you can't conceive of the number 11, or that the number 11 doesn't exist, but there is no way, under the rules of the game, that you can pick 11.
In the same way, you can say that it is impossible for a standard household brick to suddenly transform into a full-grown african elephant. Certainly you can imagine it, but the laws of conservation of mass prevent a 5kg brick from becoming a 12,000kg elephant, regardless of the logistics of the transformation itself. It just doesn't fit the rules of the universe in which we envision the phenomenon.
In order for the 'impossible' to become possible, you need to alter the rules of the system itself, which would involve travelling to another universe with different rules and constants that do not contradict the occurance of the event.

 

[xxnightlawxx]

impossible is just a word used to explain the meaning of unimaginably unthinkable of happening i think that makes sense but oh well who cares when you are talking about philosophy every thing makes sense no matter what it is like 2+2=FISH which is possible

 

[trebach]

In regards to mathematics and physics, some things truly are impossible.

Occurrences that seem very unlikely are usually, in fact, quite possible. It's just that no one really wants to expend the energy it would take to prove them.

Those occurrences that are certain but horribly difficult to prove are sometimes called intractable.

No. There are many things that are impossible, not because it's unlikly, but because it truly cannot be done:

You cannot eat your own head
You cannot fall upwards
You cannot create a perpetual motion machine
You cannot make heat travel from a cold thing to a hot thing
You cannot make 1+1=4 (in conventional maths)

What you have said is right, but only concerning things within the metaphorical rulebook of the universe. The things I have said are impossible, either because they are logically paradoxes or because they break the laws of physics.

Actually, on that fourth point, you can. It's horrendously inefficient but it is possible; ever heard of thermoelectric cooling?

I think that's the principle that Peltier fans operate on.

 

[Agayek]

In the same way, you can say that it is impossible for a standard household brick to suddenly transform into a full-grown african elephant. Certainly you can imagine it, but the laws of conservation of mass prevent a 5kg brick from becoming a 12,000kg elephant, regardless of the logistics of the transformation itself. It just doesn't fit the rules of the universe in which we envision the phenomenon

Actually, from what I know, that is possible. Incredibly unlikely, but still possible. If some form of radiation hit the brick in such a way that all the molecules realigned, and the even more unlikely event that it rests right on the event horizon of a black hole (where matter can be created from nothing due to proton pairs or somesuch) and an unfathomable number of proton pairs are created, altered and attach to the brick, it could conceivably become a full grown African elephant.

That's not to say it ever will happen, just that it is theoretically possible.

 

[Agayek]

In the same way, you can say that it is impossible for a standard household brick to suddenly transform into a full-grown african elephant. Certainly you can imagine it, but the laws of conservation of mass prevent a 5kg brick from becoming a 12,000kg elephant, regardless of the logistics of the transformation itself. It just doesn't fit the rules of the universe in which we envision the phenomenon

Actually, from what I know, that is possible. Incredibly unlikely, but still possible. If some form of radiation hit the brick in such a way that all the molecules realigned, and the even more unlikely event that it rests right on the event horizon of a black hole (where matter can be created from nothing due to proton pairs or somesuch) and an unfathomable number of proton pairs are created, altered and attach to the brick, it could conceivably become a full grown African elephant.

That's not to say it ever will happen, just that it is theoretically possible.

PS - If this is a double post, I apologize, my connection died last attempt and it seems like it didn't go through.

 

[Nickflip]

Impossibility is not Impossible, just improbable. Infinitely improbable.

 

[Splunge]

Actually, from what I know, that is possible. Incredibly unlikely, but still possible. If some form of radiation hit the brick in such a way that all the molecules realigned, and the even more unlikely event that it rests right on the event horizon of a black hole (where matter can be created from nothing due to proton pairs or somesuch) and an unfathomable number of proton pairs are created, altered and attach to the brick, it could conceivably become a full grown African elephant.

That's not to say it ever will happen, just that it is theoretically possible.

So, what you're actually saying, is that it's possible for a staggeringly large amount of energy and mass, plus an incidental brick, to turn into an elephant? Keep in mind that in order for that to work, you would need to extract 2,400 times as much mass/energy as is contained in the brick in order to get up to the correct mass. That's hardly turning the brick into an elephant, that's more like turning all that extra mass into an elephant and throwing a brick in there for fun.