ydoaPs

Good for you; it's still irrelevant. Bayes has no bearing on the contingently false nor can it tell you what is necessary. It can only tell you what likely is. You cannot get around the fact with your poorly executed hand-waving of your new favorite toy that it simply is not the case in any way that "If I can imagine it, then it is possible" is true.

It is not the case that anything which is proven through deduction (I'm not sure what you even are attempting to mean by 'exists through logical deduction') must necessarily exist. A proof is only as good as its premises. If it has false premises, then the conclusion need not be true. You've also made a very common very bad mistake for lay people in the second sentence. A representation is not the same as the thing it represents. When my niece takes out a crayon and construction paper then draws my house, the resultant drawing is not my house. I do not live in the drawing. Rather, I live in my house. I've taken the liberty of snipping the trolling flamebait out of the quote box. Have you ever gone golfing? A golfer often fails to sink her put. She knows deep down, however, that she could have sunk her put. That's a subjunctive. Bayesian reasoning is of no use when it comes to the modal and the subjunctive, because it only applies to the actual world. You can't get evidence from worlds which never happened. Bayes can only tell you what probably is; it can't tell you what probably could be, but isn't. So, keep your off-topic rants out of other threads. If you want a thread about how Bayesian epistemology is great, I'll join you, but this is not that thread. Since we're talking about whether or not things are possible rather than whether or not we know that something is the case, Bayes need not apply.

Take your meds and a deep breath. Feel better? Ok, now listen. You said, "All verbal logic can be expressed via probabilistic reasoning based on Bayes. This is blatantly false. It is false for the reason I said and independently because of the inputs that the Bayesian machine takes. English is inconsistent, so it can literally prove anything that is a well-formed formula of English to be true regardless of whether or not said formula in fact accurately represents the world. Bayes's theorem, however, is a deductive consequence of probability theory which is in fact consistent. This means there are some well-formed formulas that it can't prove-mainly, the false ones. This means you cannot simply translate one into the other. Natural language isn't good enough. Then there's the other thing. Have you ever gone golfing? A golfer often fails to sink her put. She knows deep down, however, that she could have sunk her put. That's a subjunctive. Bayesian reasoning is of no use when it comes to the modal and the subjunctive, because it only applies to the actual world. You can't get evidence from worlds which never happened. Bayes can only tell you what probably is; it can't tell you what probably could be, but isn't. That is irrelevant.

The timecube thread was closed because we already have threads about that nonsense. Furthermore, you have no right to free speech here. You have the right to play by the rules.

While the vagueness is a huge problem (you can't know if it's true or false if you don't know what it means), that's not what I was talking about. It's a point of fact that consistent and inconsistent languages cannot have exactly equivalent sets of well-formed formulas. English is straight up inconsistent. It being its own metalanguage and object language lets you write things like "This sentence is false" which, if true is false and if false is true. Oops, that's a contradiction. So, 'verbal logic' can prove literally anything and everything regardless of whether or not it accurately describes how reality actually is. If you're relying on 'verbal logic', you're doing it wrong.

If you'd bother to read the OP, you'd know that I made the distinction between what is actually possible and your (actually rather common among lay people) confusion of what is possible with what you don't know to be impossible. Not knowing something to be false does not mean that that is a way the world could actually be. Consider Goldbach's Conjecture: every even number greater than or equal to 4 is the sum of two primes. This is either true or false, but we don't yet know which. However, it would be erroneous to thus conclude that it is possible to be true or possible to be false. As a mathematical theorem (or the denial of a mathematical theorem) it is either necessarily true or necessarily false. If it is true, there is no way the world could be such that it would have been false. If it is false, there is no way that the world could be such that it is true. Epistemic possibility simply isn't in the same game as metaphysical possibility. Epistemic possibility is merely a measure of uncertainty. It's about beliefs, not the real world out there. Metaphysical possibility is about the real world out there. It's about how the world actually is, how it must be, and how it could have been but isn't. As I said, this is a subset of logical possibility (epistemic 'possibility' isn't), so my example of Russell's paradox is in fact a decisive counterexample to the claim that whatever is imaginable is a way the world could actually be. As for your weaker claim that whatever is imaginable is epistemically possible, that was also shown to be false by the OP example. See, I know for a fact that naive set theory is necessarily false. Yet I can still imagine it. I'd wager you can too. But that's even a way stronger example than needed. The mere existence of fiction disproves this claim. He can't even get that far. It's just a blatant fact that a hypothesis is in fact not held true until falsified. Since there is more than one mutually exclusive competing hypothesis at any one time, that would entail that kristalris thinks that science is founded on believing contradictions until we conclusively falsify every possible (metaphysically possible, that is) option. Knowingly believing contradictions isn't rational. With kristalris's absurd and unsupported claim that hypotheses are held to be true until shown to be otherwise, he claims that science is foundationally irrational.

That's demonstrably false. Natural language is inconsistent (arising from it being its own object and metalanguage) whereas probability theory is consistent. One of the many equivalent definitions for a consistent system is a system from which at least one well-formed formula of that system is not deducible. So, there is at least one well-formed formula of a given natural language which cannot be expressed via probability theory.

! Moderator Note The OP isn't a science topic. It's a philosophy of science topic. And it's not analyzing how likely some conclusion is. What is is doing is using the data at hand to clarify a well-accepted distinction. He's not giving a doctoral defense with brand new experiments; he's using a clear example to illustrate a difference. To expect this to be some Bayesian inference is to not have understood the OP at all as it isn't even intended to contain an inference at all! As I've said, the no reasonable observer would expect the OP to be a Bayesian inference, because it isn't an inference at all. Contrary to what you think, Bayes is off topic in this thread. Now stop hijacking and get on topic or get out of the thread.

....and none of the cheez nips

I had to acquire compromising photos of John and have him promise to make me an admin......then wait two years and become a mod.

How many cheez nips are you willing to donate to the cause? Seriously, though,the first step actually is to not ask. QFT Cheez nips don't hurt, though.

TIL: Insults can't be true. And notice that you didn't actually say something true, but something *you think* is true. Or, *gasp*, you're wrong.

First, a note about basic communication skills. In order for a message to be properly replied to, it not only needs to be heard, but the responder needs to actually listen. When you sling insults right out of the gate, you stop that process immediately. If you open with an insult, they won't listen to you. As for ignorance, we'll have to disagree with who is the ignorant one. There is a psychological effect that runs rampant in cranks/crackpots/quacks. It's, as John not quite so tactfully pointed out, called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Basically, incompetent people are so incompetent that they can't tell incompetence from competence. If you're bad enough at something, you might just think you're good at it. Many of the crackpot posters here know so little about the science they're arguing against that they genuinely don't know that they have no idea what they're talking about and they genuinely think that they are making great contributions to the site. Because of this, things like the directly above quote are hard to use without an in-depth look at the posting habits of the person. You are one of these people. You know so little about science that you are dead convinced that your little drawing is the one true path and that everyone else (including the actual physicists) are just morons. Because of this, you break the rules. Yes, it's against the rules to spam mainstream threads with your speculations. Yes, it's against the rules to spam speculation threads with off-topic speculations (one pet-theory per thread!). We don't even allow you to spam the speculations forum with your speculations (in general, one topic, one thread). These are the rules with which you agreed when you signed up to post here. The staff is more than familiar enough with mainstream science to know what is and is not mainstream. Ignorance is not an issue with us when it comes to moderating. You said "almost everything of mine has been judged,removed or abused because of lack of an Understanding in the Field" without realizing that the lack of understanding is on your end. If you want to play here, play by the rules. That means keep your speculations out of the mainstream sections and out of threads about other people's speculations. If you think we've inadequately moderated, feel free to use the report button. If you don't like the rules, feel free to never log in again. Easy, you've not provided any. You've not given anything but speculatory assertions. And "well you didn't go to my facebook page" doesn't cut it, because the site is not here to bump your webtraffic to make you have a sense of self-worth. If you want to discuss here, discuss it here, not demand that we go to your page. This is a discussion forum. But that's only one reason they get locked. It's mostly because you attempt to derail threads and spam your speculations at every chance you get. When your warning points say "thread hijack" or "spam", that's what that means. See above, and add 'abusive behaviour'. How do you know what swansont or I have or have not looked at? Oh, wait, you don't.

You made no argument. You made assertions. Your assertions are falsified by the counter-example in the OP. It is simply not the case that anything you imagine is possible. Yes. It is an example of something which is incredibly intuitive and imaginable, but impossible. That means it falsifies the claim "Anything I can imagine is possible".

Not only is that false, but has conclusively been shown to be false. Your hypothesis has been falsified. hint: we don't use naive set theory anymore

*fermions

I am ever so grateful, Empress. /me bows

Hmm, it does appear to link here. Yes, I was attempting to link to an ExtraSense thread. Farsight was Relativity+. And about the herbage, they eat berries.

Everyone knows that the only animals on Mars are goats.

Guys, come on. The goat has to live somewhere! And it needs someplace to horde its berries!

I just checked, and, if you did, it wasn't accompanied by a warning point. You were probably hijacking the thread with the metaphor.

I wasn't specifically talking about any one person, but if the shoe fits, wear it.

That's odd, since you have posted in a thread whose OP contains such an example.

I am currently dressed as Finn the human.

Did you only read the title?