If I can imagine it, it is possible!

[Ultimate Infinity]

Hey guys especially moontanman I just want to apologize for some very rude and disrespectful comments I have made lately I guess I just have been very frustrated because I can't stack to anybody here on top of recent family troubles but none of those things are an excuse to be an absolute jerk

[Schell]

If I can imagine it, it is possible!

 

I can't imagine how it could be.

But I'm almost sure that however you imagine it to be, it's probably some other way.

[Manticore]

Forget science based arguments. Forget philosophical arguments. Forget logical arguments.

If someone gives me the old 'Anything is possible.' spiel, I say:

OK. Stand against that wall facing parallel to it with your left foot and shoulder pressed against it.

Now lift your right foot off the ground.

Call me again when you have succeeded.

I never hear another word from them on the subject.

[dimreepr]

On 3/11/2017 at 6:02 PM, Manticore said:

Forget science based arguments. Forget philosophical arguments. Forget logical arguments.

If someone gives me the old 'Anything is possible.' spiel, I say:

OK. Stand against that wall facing parallel to it with your left foot and shoulder pressed against it.

Now lift your right foot off the ground.

Call me again when you have succeeded.

I never hear another word from them on the subject.

I succeeded on the 2nd attempt (had to adjust my balance), but I've yet to levitate.

[dimreepr]

Although I'm unsure how one can stand parallel with the wall if only one foot and shoulder is pressed against it?

[Manticore]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

Although I'm unsure how one can stand parallel with the wall if only one foot and shoulder is pressed against it?

I think you may have misunderstood (I can be a bit vague sometimes). By "standing facing parallel", I mean that a line taken through your body from front to rear should be parallel to the wall.

[beecee]

On 9/20/2013 at 11:03 PM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots.

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

Agreed:

I do though accept the scenario, that  humanity, given the time, may well achieve all that the laws of physics and GR allows.

[Moreno]

Without a citation, I would say that many novels are based around time travel. Do you believe it can become a reality?

[ydoaPs]

10 hours ago, Moreno said:

Without a citation, I would say that many novels are based around time travel. Do you believe it can become a reality?

I take it you didn't actually read the OP. It's generally good practice to do that before posting in its thread.

[Strange]

15 hours ago, ydoaPs said:

I take it you didn't actually read the OP. It's generally good practice to do that before posting in its thread.

"If I can read the title, I can understand the thread" 

Edited October 25, 2017 by Strange

[3____344340095e33-2]

On 2013-09-20 at 9:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

 

To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

 

The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

 

So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

 

People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

 

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, weget a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

 

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

Your whole answer fails one simple truth.  You are assuming you did not just write all of this on a forum on a web server loaded in your web browser on a computer that is on your desk that you are using as a human avatar in a simulation of life.  If it is a simulation, then anything you can imagine is truly possible but only if we the admins (God) allow your imagination to be true.  Think of the prison in Minority Break.  Maybe you are a convict and I'm the guard controlling your "punishment" aka Life.. and thus I can grant you a fantasy or ruin it by adding painful aspects to it.  But if it is real life, then no what you imagine isn't possible.  So all of your work is useless and irrelevant as it is based on an assumption that "Life(TM)" is real and not a simulation or an augmeneted reality experience.  If I stuck a chip in your brain with Augmented Reality aspects, when you walk down the street and see a space ship the ship part is a 3D illusion but you believe it because you don't know the chip is in your skull.  Far fetched, until you realize whether Life is real or a sim...   Go see Dr. Strange from that perspective.. the doc wakes up in a hospital right?  And goes on a quest.. but he never really woke up.. The neurosurgeon crashed his car and was crippled.. then they fixed his body.. stuck a chip on him like VR/AR stuff.. and he opened his eyes in a simulated reality... and all of those dimension things are just his "game" experience.  His real body was being handled in some cripples-hospital place by nurses, drones, nanites..etc.  So in reality Dr. Strange is a paralyzed crippled man.. whose conscience is playing a simulation of life... so no sir.. Dr. Strange didn't go through many dimensions.. just different levels of "Life v35.694.3.504beta9".   See how the movie now has a different meaning?

So if you can imagine it, it may be possible.

Peace out.

[Itoero]

If it's possible, I can(or should be able to) imagine it.

[tmx3]

On 9/20/2013 at 9:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

 

To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

 

The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

 

So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

 

People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

 

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

 

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

 

If I can see it, then I can do it. If I just believe it, there's nothing to it... I believe I can fly, I believe I can touch the sky!!!

[Velocity_Boy]

On 9/20/2013 at 8:03 AM, ydoaPs said:

The title is a common view among crackpots. They often think that the ability to imagine something means that the universe might actually be that way or could have been that way were things differently. To use philosophy words, they often think that conceivability means epistemic or metaphysical possibility. But, the question is, is that true?

 

To find that out, we need to find something that is conceivable but is impossible. For the first sense of possibility, (how things might actually be), that is incredibly easy. All we have to do is find something that is conceivable but not the case. Have you ever been wrong about something? If you have, you've shown that conceivability does not mean epistemic possibility.

 

The second one is a bit harder, since there's disagreement on the exact requirements of what makes something metaphysically possible, but we do know that for something to be metaphysically possible, it must also be logically possible. That is, were things different, an accurate description of the universe still wouldn't entail a contradiction.

 

So, we can knock this out by finding something which is conceivable, yet logically impossible. Can we imagine things which are contradictions? You might be tempted to say "No one can imagine a square circle!". But I'd like to talk about one which almost everyone intuitively conceives.

 

People intuitively like to group things. It's how we make sense of the world. We have apples, chairs, etc. All you have to do is put things together and you have a group. In mathematics, we call these kind of groupings 'sets'. The things in these groups are called "members". Any group of members of a set is called a "subset". This does mean that all sets are subsets of themselves, but that's not of interest to us here. What we're interested in is the idea that you can group whatever you want into a set. You can make sets of sets. You can take your set of cats and your set of dogs and put them together into a new set!

 

So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

 

So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.

 

This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.

But you don't need the math. Or 500 words or more to prove that it's ludicrous to believe that imagining something is tantamount to conjuring it into reality.

I can clearly and concisely and irrefutably prove that claim wrong by asking the claimant one six word question.....

 

"Have you ever imagined flying unaided?"

Game...set...match.

LOL

And of course I could come up with three dozen equally brief and bulletproof questions that would equally damn this pipe dream of bringing vivid imaginings to reality.

Itd take about twelve minutes.

Or just mentioning past wild things I've imagined that are totally unfeasible.

I imagined I walked on to the Boston Red Sox spring training camp and made the team as a 33 year old rookie who never even played high School baseball.

I imagined I totally demolished a concrete and steel commercial building with my bare fists. Like the Hulk.

When we beging inventing logic and math equations innorder to deal with absurd notions that are unworthy of the time it takes to formulate them, I feel we are giving undeserved consideration and possible credibility to the silly idea.

It's overkill.

It's a sort of Rube Goldberging, to use an advert I'm not sure exists.

Cheers.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Velocity_Boy

[Strange]

25 minutes ago, Velocity_Boy said:

But you don't need the math. Or 500 words or more to prove that it's ludicrous to believe that imagining something is tantamount to conjuring it into reality.

I can clearly and concisely and irrefutably prove that claim wrong by asking the claimant one six word question.....

 

"Have you ever imagined flying unaided?"

I think you might have missed the point. It is not that the crackpots in question think anything is possible if you can imagine it, but rather that their pet theory is possible because they thought of it. (In reality, it is stronger than that: they are usually convinced their idea is correct because it makes sense to them - which it obviously will, because they thought of it.)

(See also: the recent thread on "what is science" where you gave a pretty good response as to why science has to do better than "common sense" )

[YaDinghus]

On 10/3/2013 at 11:05 PM, s1eep said:

You can't imagine a square circle, that's illogical. The only things you can imagine are life alike things, since that is where your pool of knowledge comes from. If you can imagine it, it is possible, because the universe(s) is without limit. It is infinite, if you can build a mental picture of something, it is likely it is already in the universe, since the universe is much greater than you and probably had a similar thought. You may even create it, the universe(s) are so massive that they have infinite dimensions- each move you make is but a ripple in space-time, creating possibilities for future events. Your imagination, with the correct powers, could create life. It is in that much harmony with the universe; if you try to imagine a square circle you cannot but if you try to imagine a dragon you can; that's because it is more life alike. That was a illogical example.

I just imagined a 'square circle', but it's kind of a stretch of the term 'square'. Bear with me: squares and circles are two-dimensional geometric forms, naturally. A circle is a cornerless object with all points being the same distance from the centet. Cornerlessness means there is no continuity break in the direction of the line drawn, a circle graph has a continuous derivative, while a square, having corners, doesn't. This is a very big problem in making a square circle. In euclidian geometry.

Even in non-euclidian space, the definitions of square and circle must hold. A circle remains a continuous loop with all points equidistant from the center, only the circumference-diameter ratio changes. A square remains four enclosing sides (straight lines) of equal length touching at their ends under the same angle. What changes in non-euclidian geometry is the angle under which the ends of these lines touch. To make the square a circle, we need to create a warped plane on which the sides of the square meet so they form a continuous loop instead of corners.

 

One example of making a square a circle under these conditions is the equator of a sphere

[Sirjon]

Sorry to intervene... some comments analyze the proposed statement, "If I can imagine, it is possible" as based on the type of argument (reducio ad absurdum, etc). Others based it on Science... far out? (Sorry for the term)

Let's direct to the point - If I can imagine, it is possible". My answer - YES, of course

In earlier civilization, man dreamed of 'flying'. The idea started from his 'imagination'. It took man centuries to realize that it is POSSIBLE! We have spaceships, jets, gliders and all them EXISTS!

So what you imagined before, is today's reality. 

Imagination, is one way or one man's thinking mechanism to study things of how possible to achieve his 'objective'. A wheel could not be started if man never imagine on how to pull a big of stone out  from a mountain and curved it into a statue. 

So yes, IF I CAN IMAGINE, IT IS POSSIBLE. It only takes time, to make it happen!

 

[iNow]

21 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

Let's direct to the point - If I can imagine, it is possible". My answer - YES, of course
<...>
So yes, IF I CAN IMAGINE, IT IS POSSIBLE. It only takes time, to make it happen!

I can imagine the Easter Bunny having sex with a purple unicorn while riding a surf board on a star in the eagle nebula as your unborn child films all of this as a yet to be developed sperm. 

Surely, not everything imaginable is possible. 

[Sirjon]

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

I can imagine the Easter Bunny having sex with a purple unicorn while riding a surf board on a star in the eagle nebula as your unborn child films all of this as a yet to be developed sperm. 

Surely, not everything imaginable is possible. 

Why not? Buy time and it will be... the only question, are we still alive at that time?
Heard of the story about how computer been developed? Now compare your smart phone to a room-size computers of the early years? Nothing is impossible, as long as it exists in our minds. The only question is, how to do it.
We considered Charles Babbage to be the father of Computers. The only hindrance during his time is the limitation of gears and cams. Now that we have ICs and our technology  enable to conquer time and space ( processing data in microseconds and chips in nanometer sizes), nothing is impossible, the only thing that it is not possible at this time is that it is not yet exist in 'real world'.

 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Sirjon
put comma instead of a period and change Nothing into nothing impossible...

[iNow]

13 minutes ago, Sirjon said:

Why not?

Because while I’m often idealistic, I’m not naive. 

[Sirjon]

44 minutes ago, iNow said:

Because while I’m often idealistic, I’m not naive. 

I respect your opinion. 

Okay, let me put it this way -your argument that if you imagine, "the Easter Bunny having sex with a purple unicorn while riding a surf board on a star in the eagle nebula as your unborn child films all of this as a yet to be developed sperm" would not be possible is obviously, philosophically hypothetical. 
Every study in science need to be backed up by proofs. While scientists are thinking the 'whys' and the 'hows'  of a certain thing, an inventor take advantage of the 'use' of that 'why' and 'how'. That is the good thing about technology - it makes one's imagination a reality. 
Now, if we base the concept of Imagination as to be, 'not possible' due to some restriction, then you are correct.

Useful "imagination' could be possible if we do the effort to find ways to do and make it real. I don't know how you 'define' imagination and i don't know if anyone will imagine something that he believe to be invalid or will have no better use for mankind. So, if by saying things you imagine is possible as technological achievement, why not?

But imagining something out of the 'principles' of nature or science can be considered to be 'false', is of course, is how we conceive it, based on something that we generally accepted.

Still, there were instances that one's imagination disclaimed other people's belief , such example, the way Copernicus challenged Ptolemy's understanding of heavenly bodies.  

So if by the way I see 'imagination' as to my own understanding it, then I conclude, "Yes, if I can imagine it, it is possible"

 

Edited March 17, 2019 by Sirjon
add 'and' between do and make

[iNow]

Einstein imagined riding around the cosmos on a photon. That’s not possible either. 

First, massive objects cannot travel at c. Second, he barely fit on his bicycle, and you want us now to accept that his big butt could fit in a particle of light? Come on...

Your position is surely passionate and well intentioned, but IMO is self-evidently absurd and too extreme. 

[swansont]

I can imagine a perpetual motion machine, entropy spontaneously decreasing in an isolated system, and instantaneous transport over an arbitrarily long distance.

 

[ydoaPs]

On 3/17/2019 at 7:07 AM, swansont said:

I can imagine a perpetual motion machine, entropy spontaneously decreasing in an isolated system, and instantaneous transport over an arbitrarily long distance.

 

Would you like a cookie?

[swansont]

33 minutes ago, ydoaPs said:

Would you like a cookie?

Cookies are impossible.