If I can imagine it, it is possible!

[kristalris]

I cannot be part horse and part human, this is not a possibility, no metaphor is involved. Me being a centaur is impossible not the least because if I was a centaur i would not be me...

 

EQ

 

Well you seem to imagine you are part Moose or were you not quite yourself when posting the image of yourself that is possibly true. Indeed a Moose isn't a centaur.

 

In science (= rules of the site even if philosophy extends outside of science)you simply may not say as an argument the a priori is the posterior as the OP does. It is a circular argument and thus a fallacy. (The mathematics proving this at the deepest level is Bayes.)

 

Deterministic reasoning that is involved trying to prove the OP doesn’t cut it because it inherently must presume that the involved error is acceptable such as being negligible. Yet the latter is again probabilistic. You can’t circumvent this without claiming to know the absolute truth. Do you scientifically claim to know that?

 

You are allowed shortcuts if not contested and you are not allowed to go into a Monty Python act. Furthermore it may be assumed and even demanded that the opponent in a scientific debate is of good faith. I.e. you are not allowed to act as if you imagine something to be true if you already know it isn’t.

 

Imagining things true and subsequently investigating it via hypothesis testing and observation is at the heart of science, namely to test incorrect a priori notions even if they – and especially in fundamental research – are in conflict with the a priori paradigm.

 

The mathematics show the correct way to do this and that is indeed doing what the title says believing that if you can imagine it that it can possibly be true. That is what currently certified crackpots like Einstein, Newton, Columbus et cetera did, and showed that that furthers science enormously. The OP is wrong in practice and in theory because it can mathematically be proven wrong .

Edited November 20, 2013 by kristalris

[ydoaPs]

EQ

 

Well you seem to imagine you are part Moose or were you not quite yourself when posting the image of yourself that is possibly true. Indeed a Moose isn't a centaur.

 

In science (= rules of the site even if philosophy extends outside of science)you simply may not say as an argument the a priori is the posterior as the OP does. It is a circular argument and thus a fallacy. (The mathematics proving this at the deepest level is Bayes.)

 

You're wrong on several levels here. First, 'a priori' is not the same as 'prior probability'. Second, you sure can have your prior and your posterior be exactly the same and there are several ways this can happen. For example, if the likelihood is the same for every one of the hypotheses or when your prior is 1 or 0. And, most importantly, your claim (I'll call 'x') is falsified by the OP (I'll call 'o'), so P(x|o)=0.

 

You are absolutely wrong and it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, none of your waving of Bayes addresses this issue.

 

You can’t circumvent this without claiming to know the absolute truth.

Yes, I know with 'absolute truth' (whatever that is) that Russell's paradox shows naive set theory to be inconsistent.

[kristalris]

You're wrong on several levels here. First, 'a priori' is not the same as 'prior probability'. Second, you sure can have your prior and your posterior be exactly the same and there are several ways this can happen. For example, if the likelihood is the same for every one of the hypotheses or when your prior is 1 or 0. And, most importantly, your claim (I'll call 'x') is falsified by the OP (I'll call 'o'), so P(x|o)=0.

 

You are absolutely wrong and it has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. Furthermore, none of your waving of Bayes addresses this issue.

 

 

Yes, I know with 'absolute truth' (whatever that is) that Russell's paradox shows naive set theory to be inconsistent.

 

EQ

 

 

The reasoning you do here is: I’m always right so the other must be wrong => absolute proof.

 

Even a mathematical proof stating something like 0 = 0 like you do with the prior odds doesn’t constitute absolute truth (= absolutely no exceptions or assumptions whatsoever). What 0? Absolute zero? What is that then? Does it even exist? Even as a thought? Indeed what is absolute proof? It is something you need to get your OP in order. But you are then outside science. As I stated - without having to wave my hands - all along.

 

Not only outside science on the basis of a short cut stating it is evidently wrong, which in fact is nearly the only Monty Python act you do, but also via extensive not in any way properly rebutted by you argument on my part. Indeed only shy of actual full blown mathematical proof.

 

It is easy to claim that Bayes is irrelevant especially if it is indeed Bayes that proves you wrong. You didn’t even know that any argument verbal mathematical or whatever can be dealt with via Bayes. If that is so how can it ever be irrelevant. And again you flunked your Bayes for no, when you fill in anything for the LR even looking at what it should be your OP is busted. Because indeed once you’ve done the analysis it might indeed be that all the subsequent LR and the prior odds are 1. I.e. irrelevant. Or are extremely smaller than 1 disproving the probandum on a given norm.

 

Sorry mate Bayes doesn’t use 0 other than when using infinity. The latter in science can only be had as an assumption. So you got that wrong as well.

 

So no mate you don’t get further than Monty Python arguments and nitpicking. Concerning the latter what is the essential difference in this context between a priori and the prior odds BTW in your opinion?

Edited November 20, 2013 by ydoaPs
fixed quote tag error

[ydoaPs]

EQ

 

 

The reasoning you do here is: I’m always right so the other must be wrong => absolute proof.

Not at all. That's actually a quite remarkable straw man. Considering how you've not actually addressed any of my arguments (for this rather non-controversial position, fyi) and your blatant flamebait, it's not surprised that you would misrepresent me as such.

 

If you take a system and derive from that system a contradiction, the system is necessarily false. There is no set of circumstances in which naive set theory can be consistent. Yet, it can be easily imagined. It is in fact the way humans naturally approach sets, which is why it's called 'naive'.

 

It is easy to claim that Bayes is irrelevant especially if it is indeed Bayes that proves you wrong.

Bayes is irrelevant here and exactly for the reasons I've stated which you've never addressed. Stop trying to take the thread off-topic with your poor understanding of Bayesian epistemology.

 

 

 

You didn’t even know that any argument verbal mathematical or whatever can be dealt with via Bayes.

That's because you cannot know something which is false. Bayes cannot give you any information about what is not the case, but could be. You have no epistemic access to non-actual worlds, so there is absolutely no observation which can be used as evidence for the Bayesian machine when we're talking about the contingently false.

 

Bayes can only tell you what most likely is, not what most likely isn't, but could be or what most likely must be.

 

Sorry mate Bayes doesn’t use 0 other than when using infinity.

It sure does. P(f|m)=0 where f: 'ydoaPs is female' and m: 'ydoaPs' is male. Just, fyi, Bayes is what I do. You're wrong and you've been told several times why. You've addressed your mistakes precisely 0 times. Bayes is irrelevant to the topic, so stop.

 

Concerning the latter what is the essential difference in this context between a priori and the prior odds BTW in your opinion?

Priors are still based on experience. Things which are known a priori aren't. That's the whole point of Bayes: it updates the probability with new information giving you a new prior.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

kristalris

 

You need to stop hijacking threads to discuss Bayes. If that's a subject you want to discuss, start a new thread on it and leave these other threads alone.

 

Do not further hijack this thread by responding to this modnote.

[Gees]

Hello Everyone;

While reviewing this thread, I came across the statement, "Well, we agree that the OP is not true." in Kristalris's last post to me, so I thought that I should clarify my position. I have no idea if YodaP's proofs of the statement, "If I can imagine it; it is possible", are accurate or not, because I do not know enough about math to evaluate the proofs. But I am in full agreement that the statement is nonsense. I have no doubt that a person can find truth using math, if they know what they are doing; on the other hand, I don't use math, because I do not understand it, so I often use emotion to find truth. Why? Because emotion is inherently honest--it does not know how to lie.

So this is how I would consider the problem:

You are reading a newspaper and come across an article about a man, who got high on drugs, imagined that he could fly, and jumped out of a third story window to his death. Would you think to yourself, "It is a shame that he tried that on a Tuesday, because any other day it is possible that it would have worked." or " What a waste. The man was an idiot." Better yet, we will say that the person, who imagines he can fly out the window is someone that you love or care deeply about. Would you think, "Gosh, I hope this works for him because he has always wanted to fly." or would you jump forward, grab the man and wrestle him to the ground to prevent his death? If you chose the first sentence in either or these scenarios, you are lying. We can pretend to believe anything that we can imagine, but once emotion is involved, the pretense falls away.

If we consider people who are suffering from illness, people who have survived death camps, and people who lay for days on a battlefield praying for death, it is pretty clear that "If I can imagine it; it is possible" is just not true. Imagination has no causal effect on possibility. Since we have already ruled out Solipsism, the only possible argument that can be made is that imagination exists and possibility exists, and that they can happen together. Here is the problem with this argument.

Per Wiki: "Superstition is a belief, not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that future events may be influenced by one's behaviour [imagination] in some magical or mystical way."

It is an argument for superstition. That is what superstition is, the idea that something can be imagined and possible with no causal relationship.

The rational mind has an amazing ability to corrupt itself, as is evidenced by our history, and when one bases their considerations on imagination, then the possibilities for corruption are endless. But this is not truth--not reality. I am not sure why, but I have noted that when some people turn on their computers, log onto SFN and scroll to the Philosophy Forums, they seem to think that reality jumps on the back of a Pooka and takes a midnight ride. (chuckle) Not so. Reality is still here.

While reading this thread, I came across a statement that explained that science starts out with imagination and a guess, which develops into hypothesis, testing, theory, and proofs. I have read this before, in this forum. I believe that someone was quoting Feynman, who was purported to state, "First you guess." When I read that, I was sure that it had to be a misquote, or out of context, because Feynman was a very smart man. But it is possible that science has moved so far from philosophy that it has forgotten it's roots and really believes that imagination and guessing is how truth is discovered. This might explain threads like this one, and the silly ideas that come from using imagination and guessing as a starting point for scientific exploration.

To be honest, I suspect that using guesses to start scientific studies would cause one to run out of funding before they got anywhere. So I am going to share my layman's self-proclaimed version of how studies start with regard to philosophy. (chuckle)

First, you observe or experience something. Then you must go through the very tedious process of stripping that something of your beliefs, projections, and perspective. This is a very important step, because if you can not accomplish this, then what you are studying is yourself, your beliefs, your projections, and your perspective, so you are not studying the actual "something". If you manage to strip away all or at least most of your biases, then you can start to analyze this "something" as you now can know the truth of it; what it is, in and of itself. As you analyze and study it, you will have questions like, "What is it? Why is it? How does it work?" At this point your imagination can come into play while attempting to answer these questions, so this is the guessing part. Imagination can work here because the parameters of imagination are limited by the truth that you have uncovered of the "something" that you are studying. Then you form a hypothesis and pass it off to science, so that science can test and prove it. Science will prove the hypothesis false and call you an idiot, or prove it true and claim the credit. Either way, philosophy rarely gets the credit.

So if science forgets philosophy's truths, it can make a fool of itself and produce nonsense. If philosophy forgets science's proofs, it can make a fool of itself and produce nonsense. They are a team that works hand in hand. imo

Maybe this will help someone to understand the imagination problem. Unlimited imagination belongs in Hollywood. imo

G

[kristalris]

Hello Everyone;

 

While reviewing this thread, I came across the statement, "Well, we agree that the OP is not true." in Kristalris's last post to me, so I thought that I should clarify my position. I have no idea if YodaP's proofs of the statement, "If I can imagine it; it is possible", are accurate or not, because I do not know enough about math to evaluate the proofs. But I am in full agreement that the statement is nonsense. I have no doubt that a person can find truth using math, if they know what they are doing; on the other hand, I don't use math, because I do not understand it, so I often use emotion to find truth. Why? Because emotion is inherently honest--it does not know how to lie.

 

So this is how I would consider the problem:

 

You are reading a newspaper and come across an article about a man, who got high on drugs, imagined that he could fly, and jumped out of a third story window to his death. Would you think to yourself, "It is a shame that he tried that on a Tuesday, because any other day it is possible that it would have worked." or " What a waste. The man was an idiot." Better yet, we will say that the person, who imagines he can fly out the window is someone that you love or care deeply about. Would you think, "Gosh, I hope this works for him because he has always wanted to fly." or would you jump forward, grab the man and wrestle him to the ground to prevent his death? If you chose the first sentence in either or these scenarios, you are lying. We can pretend to believe anything that we can imagine, but once emotion is involved, the pretense falls away.

 

If we consider people who are suffering from illness, people who have survived death camps, and people who lay for days on a battlefield praying for death, it is pretty clear that "If I can imagine it; it is possible" is just not true. Imagination has no causal effect on possibility. Since we have already ruled out Solipsism, the only possible argument that can be made is that imagination exists and possibility exists, and that they can happen together. Here is the problem with this argument.

 

Per Wiki: "Superstition is a belief, not based on human reason or scientific knowledge, that future events may be influenced by one's behaviour [imagination] in some magical or mystical way."

 

It is an argument for superstition. That is what superstition is, the idea that something can be imagined and possible with no causal relationship.

 

The rational mind has an amazing ability to corrupt itself, as is evidenced by our history, and when one bases their considerations on imagination, then the possibilities for corruption are endless. But this is not truth--not reality. I am not sure why, but I have noted that when some people turn on their computers, log onto SFN and scroll to the Philosophy Forums, they seem to think that reality jumps on the back of a Pooka and takes a midnight ride. (chuckle) Not so. Reality is still here.

 

While reading this thread, I came across a statement that explained that science starts out with imagination and a guess, which develops into hypothesis, testing, theory, and proofs. I have read this before, in this forum. I believe that someone was quoting Feynman, who was purported to state, "First you guess." When I read that, I was sure that it had to be a misquote, or out of context, because Feynman was a very smart man. But it is possible that science has moved so far from philosophy that it has forgotten it's roots and really believes that imagination and guessing is how truth is discovered. This might explain threads like this one, and the silly ideas that come from using imagination and guessing as a starting point for scientific exploration.

 

To be honest, I suspect that using guesses to start scientific studies would cause one to run out of funding before they got anywhere. So I am going to share my layman's self-proclaimed version of how studies start with regard to philosophy. (chuckle)

 

First, you observe or experience something. Then you must go through the very tedious process of stripping that something of your beliefs, projections, and perspective. This is a very important step, because if you can not accomplish this, then what you are studying is yourself, your beliefs, your projections, and your perspective, so you are not studying the actual "something". If you manage to strip away all or at least most of your biases, then you can start to analyze this "something" as you now can know the truth of it; what it is, in and of itself. As you analyze and study it, you will have questions like, "What is it? Why is it? How does it work?" At this point your imagination can come into play while attempting to answer these questions, so this is the guessing part. Imagination can work here because the parameters of imagination are limited by the truth that you have uncovered of the "something" that you are studying. Then you form a hypothesis and pass it off to science, so that science can test and prove it. Science will prove the hypothesis false and call you an idiot, or prove it true and claim the credit. Either way, philosophy rarely gets the credit.

 

So if science forgets philosophy's truths, it can make a fool of itself and produce nonsense. If philosophy forgets science's proofs, it can make a fool of itself and produce nonsense. They are a team that works hand in hand. imo

 

Maybe this will help someone to understand the imagination problem. Unlimited imagination belongs in Hollywood. imo

 

G

EQ

 

Nope: the rule is: observe ALL (you reasonably can) then guess in order to formulate a testable most probable hypotheses in the logical language required/ dictated by the amount of relevant data (and thus not by any communis opinio on that matter) and then test and observe. And keep on repeating this process. No Hollywood. So the title is correct and the OP wrong.

[Gees]

EQ

 

Nope: the rule is: observe ALL (you reasonably can) then guess in order to formulate a testable most probable hypotheses in the logical language required/ dictated by the amount of relevant data (and thus not by any communis opinio on that matter) and then test and observe. And keep on repeating this process. No Hollywood. So the title is correct and the OP wrong.

 

Kristalris;

 

Per the underlined above, who or what dictates which data is "relevant"? Because if you choose which data is relevant, then it is your opinion/judgment of that data that causes a circular and self-supporting evidence.

 

 

Would that be imagination? Or would that be reality?

 

G

[kristalris]

 

.

 

Kristalris;

 

Per the underlined above, who or what dictates which data is "relevant"? Because if you choose which data is relevant, then it is your opinion/judgment of that data that causes a circular and self-supporting evidence.

 

 

Would that be imagination? Or would that be reality?

 

G

 

 

To keep my reaction to your question as short as possible and intelligible for those not following the other discussion part of my answer is in this thread as you know:

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/80193-the-bayesian-machine/?p=779504

In further answer to this specific question on relevance: everything you guess or know to be because many you know agree that it’s a scientifically accepted fact or that you deem it to be commonly held to be true that is larger or smaller than a LR of 1 is relevant.

 

It is not circular because it’s testable: i.e. you can check whether others accept your guess, for instance that nurses hardly ever if at all kill patients against their will or in conflict with the rules.

 

A guess presented as a guess is scientifically valid.

 

An honest guess is possible reality.

Edited November 26, 2013 by kristalris

[hoola]

I agree with the topic "if I can imagine it, it is possible".....on both phases....sometime a "real" thing can be built using a thought experiment as a guide in physical construction. This is how Tesla supposedly invented the AC motor with his imaginings of a rotating magnetic field....so that is possible. When the other side of the subject is considered, it still remains true,....examining the statement, using a strict semantic definition of "if I can imagine it, it is possible", then the statement is true still as reads...."If I can imagine it, it is possible... to imagine it"...this includes any sort of perpetual motion machine, flying pigs, etc. In a legal-istic fancy footwork style, the thread starter used a partial statement, of which people filled in with what is presumed the author meant....very funny....and explains the puzzling success of the advertising industry, and why propaganda works......edd

Edited November 29, 2013 by hoola

[Gees]

I agree with the topic "if I can imagine it, it is possible".....on both phases....sometime a "real" thing can be built using a thought experiment as a guide in physical construction. This is how Tesla supposedly invented the AC motor with his imaginings of a rotating magnetic field....so that is possible. When the other side of the subject is considered, it still remains true,....examining the statement, using a strict semantic definition of "if I can imagine it, it is possible", then the statement is true still as reads...."If I can imagine it, it is possible... to imagine it"...this includes any sort of perpetual motion machine, flying pigs, etc. In a legal-istic fancy footwork style, the thread starter used a partial statement, of which people filled in with what is presumed the author meant....very funny....and explains the puzzling success of the advertising industry, and why propaganda works......edd

 

Hoola;

 

Nicola Tesla was an inventer, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and a physicist. Since the AC motor is based on science, we can rightly assume that his training in science is what enabled him to imagine the AC motor and cause it to be possible. Please note that he did not imagine "flying pigs" and enable them to be possible.

 

This is a science forum. So it is not difficult for a clear thinking person to understand that the point of this thread is that "imagination" on it's own does not make things possible. Science is required.

 

But I agree with you about the "advertising industry" as most people would rather imagine than think.

 

G

[kristalris]

Hoola;

 

Nicola Tesla was an inventer, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and a physicist. Since the AC motor is based on science, we can rightly assume that his training in science is what enabled him to imagine the AC motor and cause it to be possible. Please note that he did not imagine "flying pigs" and enable them to be possible.

 

This is a science forum. So it is not difficult for a clear thinking person to understand that the point of this thread is that "imagination" on it's own does not make things possible. Science is required.

 

But I agree with you about the "advertising industry" as most people would rather imagine than think.

 

G

 

Well I don't see that as the point of the thread. The thread title and OP must be placed in a scientific context. So the title in that context is correct as a start of an honest inference. The OP is incorrect in the idea that science at all can deal with truisms. It doesn't per definition.

[Wso]

"If I can imagine it, it is possible" seems to greatly depend on how you define imagine. I can imagine a little box that gives off energy but requires none to power it (infinite energy, which is not possible) but I can not begin to imagine the inner workings of this box. If you can imagine every aspect of something, then it can exist, you don't have to imagine every aspect, just be able too. I can imagine a car, but u don't know every part of it, but I can imagine how the parts would all work.

[Strange]

 

Nicola Tesla was an inventer, electrical engineer, mechanical engineer, and a physicist. Since the AC motor is based on science, we can rightly assume that his training in science is what enabled him to imagine the AC motor and cause it to be possible. Please note that he did not imagine "flying pigs" and enable them to be possible.

 

But he did imagine (and attempt to develop) a lot of things which were not commercially viable, impractical or downright impossible.

"If I can imagine it, it is possible" seems to greatly depend on how you define imagine. I can imagine a little box that gives off energy but requires none to power it (infinite energy, which is not possible) but I can not begin to imagine the inner workings of this box.

And I think that is a part of the problem with the sort of people the OP was referring to. They have an idea, they think in general terms about how it could work and then assert it as fact without even some back of the enevelope math to test the idea. (And then they get all huffy when someone suggests it won't actually work.)

Edited January 6, 2014 by Strange

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

I have split off Adrian Kent's article, as it bears little relation to this thread, is more a pop-sci op-ed (although IMHO a good one), and falls foul of our rule against bald links ("members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links").

 

I have put it in the lounge where the rules are less strict

 

Kristalris - we would appreciate it if you stuck to the topic and checked and followed our rules on posting. Do not respond to this modnote in thread.

 

[Rajnish Kaushik]

naaa not always if i imagine Emma watson marry me then is it possible?

[hoola]

if you can imagine it, it is possible (to imagine it), and even then you are only a reflector with a cloudy mirror...

[hoola]

when I said the remark about niclola tesla and the "flying pigs" I was using that as an example...who knows if tesla ever imagined in his mind a flying pig...his "flying pig" was the desire to send heavy electical currents through the air without wires.... and his undoing, as the early successes with the AC motor were squandered on this, plus he could have beaten marconi to the punch on radio if he hadn't wasted his time with the idea...as far as dealing directly with the forum topic, I see anything one can imagine as being within the IBH (informational black hole) and we can only imagine or express what is within that. The IBH created the universe in math terms, and is nearly infinite, which allows any sentience to have a not quite infinite imagination. This puts a cap on free will, which relates to the question "if I can imagine it-it-is -possible" is really asking. An act of free will is to imagine real or impossible things. The ultimate act of free will is to imagine things not yet described by the IBH...a seemingly impossible task...

[Burning Ghost]

If we can imagine something we can (to varying degrees) bring about its resemblance in the sensible world.

[lepton_veecee]

What we imagine is a combination of things that you felt , can anyone imagine something that has no connection with existing stuffs or reality or what ever it is.So the thing is

 

If it is possible you can imagine it

[Quadrivium]

I think there's room to challenge this notion.

 

Warren Goldfarb, W. B. Pearson Professor of Modern Mathematics and Mathematical Logic, wrote in the conclusion of his work titled, ‘Russell’s Reasons for Ramification’, “Russell's logicist enterprise fails, as is shown by the need for the axiom of reducibility (which cannot be justified on any grounds but expediency); this failure may indeed show, as Godel says, that there is irreducibly mathematical content in mathematics.”

I think when discussing true nature one must consider natural commonality and natural logic. After all mathematics is a human interpretation of successful descriptions observed of nature. When we divide by zero or imagine set theory as actualities we are left with infinite potential, and that seems pretty useless in calculating anything of coherence. We instead ignore the paradox associated with zero and finite measurement. We've invented Diracs equations and such to round off probabilities of quantum fields and it works good enough. But that doesn't mean natural logical mechanisms of paradox can't actually exist in nature.

[lepton_veecee]

Yes you are right , paradox may exist but not in the same reality or slice of world where it is a paradox,But in another scale or varient of the universe it may exist .

for example i cant be at two places at the same time but an electron can.

[Iamwhat?]

What if said "crackpot" had the ability to imagine something that is inconceivable yet logical? Einstein thought it inconceivable that the universe was not set. He could not except the fact that the moon is only the moon when observed. I think your an "Einstein" you think you know it all, but in the end your own ignorance blinds you to the truth. The only thing that is certain is change, everything else is temporary including scientific fact.

Sorry This just came to me and I must post it. All great thinkers are "crackpots" the rest just fallow.

I'm sure many thought Isaac Newton a "crackpot" good day.

[Avalanche2001]

If things only existed when thought about or noticed, than technically, nothing would exist because you can only think about one subject at a time, so all others not being thought about by others, mostly specific objects would be non- existent part of the time. And if quantum theory states that no matter can be destroyed or created, how would that work? Things are constantly under change, and, supposedly only themelves when somebody thinks of them as itself, so mentally your theory is correct, but I do not believe it physically. Also, i can Imagine that your Theory is incorrect...

Edited October 5, 2014 by Avalanche2001

[Strange]

All great thinkers are "crackpots" the rest just fallow.

 

Even if that is true (debatable) the converse is not true: not all crackpots are great thinkers. Most of them are just crackpots.