Poll: Is Anything Possible?

[the_tramp]

It's impossible to lick your own elbow(I kid, I kid!)

Real answer:
It's impossible to say with 100% accuracy what you will be doing tomorrow.

 

[Totenkopf]

Everything is possible, it's just a matter of likeliness.

 

[Thrashgrinder]

Like the great twat once said. "Its impossible to eat the himalayas" so yes impossible exists

 

[Zacharine]

There are many things that can't happen by definition, like having a 13 inch foot, or a circle with 4 corners.

The former can happen if we change the definition of a foot(when I am king of everything I will do it to scare the triscadecaphobians).

We will not even have to change definition. Because lenght is relative. A 13 inch foot exists[/b,] as long as the observers are moving at sufficients speeds relative to eachother.

It's implicit when we talk about definition that we are refering to the foot as measuring unit.

My first quote was taken from that same precise post.

"We will not have to change definition" was in response to crudus' comment that a 13 inch long foot can exist as soon as we redifine foot.

And notice how I say we will not need to change the definition of foot as lenght measurement unit for there to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches.

So, I'm still a bit confused.

No you are not confused. Saying a "13 inch foot exists" and "to exist a footlong piece that is measurably 13 inches" is not the same thing is it? But now that you replaced it I think we finally are in agreement 100%.

Ahh, now I see. You see, I take this as an implicit statement in all my posts:

All measurement by its very nature is dependant upon the relative speed of the observer in relation to the object measured. Therefore, there is no absolute lenght.

So, with enough speed difference, a foot long piece will measure 13 inches therefore, to the measurer, the footlong piece is 13 inches long. Making it a 13 inches long foot.

Again, we hit the frame of reference problem. I say there is no such thing as absolute frame of reference, therefore any and all measurements of lenght are provisional to the measurers frame of reference. Therefore, to the measurer, in his own frame of reference, truth is that foot is 13 inches long.

Finally managed to wrap my head around that in english. So our difference is that while we both agree that differences is measurement exist because of relativity, I say that to the observer, in his own untransformed frame of reference, reality is just as he has observed: a particular object the lenght of a single (12in)foot is 13 inches long.

 

[sunburst]

All measurement by its very nature is dependant upon the relative speed of the observer in relation to the object measured. Therefore, there is no absolute lenght.

So, with enough speed difference, a foot long piece will measure 13 inches therefore, to the measurer, the footlong piece is 13 inches long. Making it a 13 inches long foot.

But if the item being measured is 13 inches long according to the one measuring it, you can no longer say it is 1 foot long. You just said there is no absolute length. Why is this item's status as being 1 foot long somehow exempt from that?

 

[Zacharine]

All measurement by its very nature is dependant upon the relative speed of the observer in relation to the object measured. Therefore, there is no absolute lenght.

So, with enough speed difference, a foot long piece will measure 13 inches therefore, to the measurer, the footlong piece is 13 inches long. Making it a 13 inches long foot.

But if the item being measured is 13 inches long according to the one measuring it, you can no longer say it is 1 foot long. You just said there is no absolute length. Why is this item's status as being 1 foot long somehow exempt from that?

It is not. However, when the item was constructed, it was done sone in the same frame of reference as the item.

Therefore the item is 1 foot long from it's own frame of reference, but not necessarily form an outsiders.

Therefore, to an outsider, it would appear and thus be, longer or shorter, depending on their four-vector differences.

And perhaps I should clarify between the concept of a foot as 12inches long unit of lenght, and between physical measurement of lenght an object has.

To me, measurement unit is a concept of lenght. In the case of a foot, it is 12 inches, as measured from the frame of reference of the object to be measured. The actual lenght, to an observer, is dependant upon relativity.

Therefore, an object that measures from it's own frame of reference 1 foot, is of lenght X to any observer, and would thus be a 1 foot long object, that measures (and thus is to the obeserver) of X inches in lenght.

 

[sunburst]

-snip-

That was very well worded. My only issue with your statements was that you claimed there was no absolute length while your idea here relies on the existence of an absolute or "proper" length within an object's rest frame. We're on the same page now. Well done sir.

Ugh, now I have to get back to work.

 

[robakerson]

I dare anyone to disprove ANYTHING, if you factor in magic, other planets, and alternate dimensions. My logic is that we can't prove that something definitely doesn't exist/ happen somewhere out there. That is the one thing that is impossible. But by all means, try to disprove something to me.
P.S. anyone trying to disprove something visual I?m sick of repeating my self so here goes, maybe x is happening, you just don't realize it.

This seems to be a self-refuting argument.
If I am reading this correctly, you posit that the only thing that is inherently impossible is the concept of something being impossible?

In trying to give the OT some measure of good-faith, this entire discussion reeks of the philosophical debate on objectivity versus subjectivity. It's an intellectual stalemate at its core, and the resolution of the conflict (which is impossible) would essentially mean nothing.

I.E. there are no axioms we have to work with, besides those we create in the context of the debate (except that magic, other planets, and alternate dimensions all *might* exist), and any we posit can/could be immediately refuted.

I.G. I might say, "Given that 2+2=4, 2+2 =/= 5."
To which you might say, "Your assertion that 2+2 = 4 isn't clear since it's possible, through magic, that 2 + 2 = 5."
Or, "In some other dimension, the laws of mathematics might be such that addition doesn't yield unique results. Therefore, it's possible that 2+2=4 & 2+2=5! Huzzah!"
or hell, "It's possible that an omnipotent presence made us all erroneously believe that 2+2=4, which could be wrong. In reality, it *could* be true that 2+2=5."

In fact, with the framework you've given us, I acknowledge that it's impossible to 'disprove' something. My last argument above (and its many variations; see: we might not truly be perceiving the world, everything is a computer simulation, etc) could be used to support the idea that anything is possible. Since it's impossible to prove it 100% wrong, you win.


TL;DR
You're right, it's impossible to 'disprove' something, given the framework you set up.
So what?

 

[zenoaugustus]

Haven't you ever heard Keviun Garnett? Anything is possible!

 

[crudus]

If your computers didn't perform the calculations and sums, they would not work. That is fairly obvious. You think someone went through every mathematical possibility, programming the correct answers? That would be ridiculous. They'd still be working on the first calculator now.

Whatever. I give up with you. You're flat-out refusing to prove that dividing by zero is possible until I, I dunno, go into the past and ask the first person who discovered you can't do as as to why.

As a side note, it is you that is just "shutting your ears and declaring victory". You're just saying "Give me proof!" when it is a widely-known fact that you cannot divide by zero.

Whatever. I'll just copy-paste from Wikipedia, since you seem to feel that you don't want to actually respond until I provide something.

In mathematics, a division is called a division by zero if the divisor is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a / 0 where a is the dividend. Whether this expression can be assigned a well-defined value depends upon the mathematical setting. In ordinary (real number) arithmetic, the expression has no meaning.

That was a simple proof by contradiction and I can't find anything wrong with it. It was a "widely-known fact" the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. They got pretty creative with forcing equations to prove themselves right too. Various astronomers had the burden of proof to prove the the sun was the center, our earth revolved in an elliptical pattern, etc. The point is you finally were able to back up your argument with solid evidence which is what I was going for. Computers are told how to do the calculations like addition. I am not saying programmers told the computer what 3+4 equals. The computer doesn't need to know. The computer is told how to take input and it is told what to do with that input and it gives an output. This is what I mean when I say computers have a set response: they only do what they are programmed to (not necessarily what you mean them to do).

 

[USSR]

This sentence is false.

Can you disprove me?

 

[Danny Ocean]

I dare anyone to disprove ANYTHING, if you factor in magic, other planets, and alternate dimensions. My logic is that we can't prove that something definitely doesn't exist/ happen somewhere out there. That is the one thing that is impossible. But by all means, try to disprove something to me.
P.S. anyone trying to disprove something visual I?m sick of repeating my self so here goes, maybe x is happening, you just don't realize it.

It's logically impossible to have anything physical made of non-physical ideas and such.

For example:

A bed made of sleep.
A house made of red.
A cup of shut up.

Or logical contradictions or impossibilities like:

A 4-sided circle
A 5-sided triangle
etc...

These things simply can't exist, no matter what alternate dimension you go into. You might try to argue that in another universe 'sleep' is the word for wood, but that is an invalid argument as all you are doing is changing the word. The idea of sleep still cannot make a bed, no matter what you call the two things.

 

[crudus]

Actually language did get in the way. A circle can define both the Circumference (all points in a plane, which by definition is 2-dimensional, at same distance the same from the centre) or the entire disk within the circunference. So a circle can indead contain corners, just not in its limit. The circunference on the other side can't if we keep the same no changing definition policy. On a side note, the prevalent definition in english for circle is the first, but its not the prevalent definition in other languages I know (french, spanish and portuguese), as it is the geometrical place defined by points in a plane of at same or inferior distance from a point denominated center. And the curved line delimiting it its always a circumference. So somebody already changed the definition, many centuries ago I believe.

Ok, I dipped into philosophy by referring to Kant's das Ding an sich(or thing-in-itself). What that means is we can change the definition of a circle as much as we want but we still have this thing that is round and has no corners which is a circle's das Ding an sich.

Let me try it this way. Words are like pointers. Words in of themselves have no meaning, they just point to an idea we have of a physical object or abstract concept. We cannot change das Ding an sich; we can only change how we refer to it as. Here's the thing about a units of measurements: they really don't have an identity on their own. We said "this arbitrary length is the standard for future units of measure".

The idea of das Ding an sich is hard to grasp and language gets in the way and I am not good at explaining it. I am sorry if that was confusing.

 

[Mawmon]

possible given the same ideology because there would also have to exist a rea

I dare anyone to disprove ANYTHING, if you factor in magic, other planets, and alternate dimensions. My logic is that we can't prove that something definitely doesn't exist/ happen somewhere out there. That is the one thing that is impossible. But by all means, try to disprove something to me.

There is something that I can disprove to you.

The statement "You do not exist."

This is because logical absolutes are not dependant on perception or even the state of reality.

This FTW.

 

[Soods]

Dividing by zero?

 

[Yopaz]

Breaking the laws of physics.

You can't make a ball bounce in the floor then as the kinetic energy is transformed into sounds, warmth and potential energy it can't lay still in the ceiling.

You can't make gravity work opposite.

You can't make water freeze by raising the temperature.

You can't make Yahtzee play through Final Fantasy VII and like it so much he stays awake for a few days to complete it then give it a review where he says every bit of it was awesome, then also give it a plus for the characters.

Some things are impossible. We might not be able to prove something doesn't exist, that's one of the laws of science. But we can find out what's possible to do or not. We can try for billions of years and never manage to cut down a tree only using cotton.

 

[p3t3r]

if u put a 2d circle in a 2d rectangle u can't have the circle touch all the sides of the rectangle at once with no over lap assuming the rectangle isn't a square.and this all has to stay in the 2d plane

 

[MurderousToaster]

If your computers didn't perform the calculations and sums, they would not work. That is fairly obvious. You think someone went through every mathematical possibility, programming the correct answers? That would be ridiculous. They'd still be working on the first calculator now.

Whatever. I give up with you. You're flat-out refusing to prove that dividing by zero is possible until I, I dunno, go into the past and ask the first person who discovered you can't do as as to why.

As a side note, it is you that is just "shutting your ears and declaring victory". You're just saying "Give me proof!" when it is a widely-known fact that you cannot divide by zero.

Whatever. I'll just copy-paste from Wikipedia, since you seem to feel that you don't want to actually respond until I provide something.

In mathematics, a division is called a division by zero if the divisor is zero. Such a division can be formally expressed as a / 0 where a is the dividend. Whether this expression can be assigned a well-defined value depends upon the mathematical setting. In ordinary (real number) arithmetic, the expression has no meaning.

That was a simple proof by contradiction and I can't find anything wrong with it. It was a "widely-known fact" the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. They got pretty creative with forcing equations to prove themselves right too. Various astronomers had the burden of proof to prove the the sun was the center, our earth revolved in an elliptical pattern, etc. The point is you finally were able to back up your argument with solid evidence which is what I was going for. Computers are told how to do the calculations like addition. I am not saying programmers told the computer what 3+4 equals. The computer doesn't need to know. The computer is told how to take input and it is told what to do with that input and it gives an output. This is what I mean when I say computers have a set response: they only do what they are programmed to (not necessarily what you mean them to do).

OK, so, where does this leave us? You've still not tried to disprove me in any way.

 

[Jagers1994]

Yes anythings possible. If you went back in time and told people in rome that one humans will be transported auround the world in large hunks of metal that soar through the air, everyone would say thats impossible.

 

[DeASplode]

Humans can't build planets?