Every impossibility that you can think of is just a logical error waiting to be resolved

[Ex-User (9086)]

All ideas accessible by your mind can exist in reality. The only time when ideas appear impossible is when they are disconnected from the causal explanation of their origin, or in other words disconnected from the underlying logical structure.

Try to think of something impossible and you will find that your mind creates something impossible by introducing a logical error or a hole in the model of reality that gives rise to the impossible idea.

There are two types of impossibility. First one is a logical error - usually an effect without a cause. The second one is a logical redundancy - A causes A which causes B.


As an example let's say that the impossibility is "Move mountains with magic". It appears impossible, however that idea contains a logical error, it's essentially saying that it's impossible to "Move mountains with a force that is either mysterious or exists outside of the laws of nature" so put more simply the idea is to "move something with something that can't be explained or with something that can't exist". So in the end it's impossible by the virtue of being impossible, that's a logical redundancy. If A is impossible because A is impossible.

The above example can be made possible by linking it to a logically structured model of the world. This can be done by following a causal chain of questions about its origin. What is magic? - Magic is a force. What is the origin of this force - nanomachines, advanced gravitational field generators, etc.


This makes sense, after all our minds have evolved from primitive nerve circuits that took all of their input from a logically consistent reality. Also all memorized content of the mind comes from a logically consistent world that you experience. Our language is a set of structures and meanings that build on the model of logical reality.

Our mind can't use its imagination to create a logical structure that couldn't be linked into the logical structure underlying reality. The best it can do is to insert a simple contradiction or a gap into the parts of logical structures it is copying in order to create something impossible. Existing in a logically continuous model of reality and thinking in logical structures or abstracted parts of logical structures is inescapable. Everything is possible as long as it is given a logical framework.

There are three spaces that give rise to different flavors of logical frameworks. The physical reality, the sentient mind and the space of all mathematical concepts (the space of all frameworks). In a way, the sentient mind often takes on a role of reconciling the structure seen in physical reality with that of pure mathematical logic or the other way around.

 

[Cognisant]

As I like to think of it, sometimes the question is wrong.

Do we have free will?
Free of what exactly? Causality? Consequences? Choice?

Do I have a soul?
Is the soul you or something you own because it is you then then it's not a thing you can have because it's not a thing in the first place, or if it is a thing then why does it matter if you have it or not if it's not inherently you?

What is the meaning of life?
What is meaning in this context, like words on a page, an inherent purpose, is it to have lead a life that had a lasting positive impact upon others? Before the question can be answered it must first be determined what is actually being asked.

 

[Black Rose]

Do we have free will?

The will is unblocked.
Always follows the path of least resistance.

Do I have a soul?

you are a soul
a soul being a subjectivity that is eternal

What is the meaning of life?

homeostasis

 

[BurnedOut]

Our mind can't use its imagination to create a logical structure that couldn't be linked into the logical structure underlying reality. The best it can do is to insert a simple contradiction or a gap into the parts of logical structures it is copying in order to create something impossible. Existing in a logically continuous model of reality and thinking in logical structures or abstracted parts of logical structures is inescapable. Everything is possible as long as it is given a logical framework.

"Thinking that something is impossible is cognitive laziness. Even if the thing is impossible in the framework of currently known science, you are calling it impossible without even thinking about what makes it impossible. If you figure out why the particular action is impossible, you are essentially ignoring the fact that it can be made to fit the logical structure by redefining the whole situation's narration."

You are essentially referring to 'cognitive laziness' but to an unrealistic extent.

As an example let's say that the impossibility is "Move mountains with magic". It appears impossible, however that idea contains a logical error, it's essentially saying that it's impossible to "Move mountains with a force that is either mysterious or exists outside of the laws of nature" so put more simply the idea is to "move something with something that can't be explained or with something that can't exist". So in the end it's impossible by the virtue of being impossible, that's a logical redundancy. If A is impossible because A is impossible.

Assertion: "It is impossible that I can kill someone by winking at them"
Why: Because winking does not contain enough momentum to displace the person insofar to cause their death.
New Assertion: "If I wink at someone, it will not cause their death because winking does not have enough momentum."

Winkkill is impossible because it does not follow the law of physics. You are not deriving A out of a void. It is impossible by the virtue of not being possible in the light of currently available information.

I feel that you are trying to mix pure logic with real life logic.

 

[Cognisant]

Assertion: "It is impossible that I can kill someone by winking at them"

You haven't specified how winking at someone kills them, in modern warfare it's standard practice to have discreet markings of rank on uniforms to make it difficult for snipers to pick out officers. An infiltrator known to the sniper could stand with their face visible to the sniper and wink at someone to indicate that they're an officer, effectively giving them the wink of death.

Or someone's in a death trap that can be triggered by winking at a camera with facial recognition and expression tracking software.

I think what you mean was that it's impossible to kill someone through the act of winking itself, this excludes all external aids, so for example using your eyelid to pull a very light trigger on a purpose-made gun wouldn't count. But although I agree that practically speaking killing someone with a wink is infeasible, it's not axiomatically impossible, it would require the most incredibly specific circumstances but it's not absolutely impossible.

You could push someone off a cliff with a wink if they were perfectly balanced, including the force of your face pressed against them until it is ever so slightly increased by the additional force of your eyelid closing. Now one could argue that it's really the fall that kills them, or more specifically the sudden stop, or more specifically still the loss of structural cohesion caused by a sudden increase in kinetic energy, or if we want to be truly pedantic we could say that death did not occur until all the neurons in the brain that didn't die from the impact finally succumbed to oxygen deprivation due to the compromised aerobic and circulatory systems.

...

I forgot the point I was trying to make.

 

[Yubbie]

If there is logical order in the world then the body is not immune to it which is therefore not a limitation but a pathway.

When a person wishes to move from one place to another do they process each tendon and muscle? When a person thinks a thought do they push eletrical activity from one area of the brain to another? Throughout the day, does a person filter liquids and solids out of the digestive system?

All these things a person does with inherent faith that it will happen while the body operates with a natural order. Which is to say the body is capable of doing miraculous acts automatically given enough faith that the particular thing is possible.

23 When He got into the boat, His disciples followed Him. 24 Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was engulfed by the waves; but Jesus was sleeping. 25 The disciples went and woke Him, saying, “Lord, save us! We are perishing!”​

​

26 “You of little faith,” Jesus replied, “why are you so afraid?” Then He got up and rebuked the winds and the sea, and it was perfectly calm.​

​

27 The men were amazed and asked, “What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the sea obey Him!”​

Matthew 8

 

[EndogenousRebel]

There is a lot of linguistics pretext that goes with this.

There is no such thing as logic outside of pure math. It's impossible that 2+2=5 unless we completely alter something about the fundamental rules of math or the thing computing it. But if you get 2 apples and another 2 apples, it will never get you anything but 4 apples. Unless you wanna cut them in half then technically I suppose you have "more" apples, but not anymore apple content. That's why linguistics is to be rectified.

The world itself could already be purely logical, as math seems to work really well at explaining things, so this means that the world is free of logical errors, and that in order to do something impossible, you would in turn be creating a logical error. But then you're probably using logic to create the logical error, so it only makes sense that the logical error is logically an error. What a brainbender.

 

[BurnedOut]

I forgot the point I was trying to make.

Are you ok?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I believe thinking is natural to humans.

The issue with thinking is that it can only be useful after refining the process.

As they say think again.

Ones mind must work in order with truth.

Reality is not malleable.

It is the mind of humans that is malleable.

Discerning which thoughts are useful and which not takes more than merely entertaining ones mind.

Good example is how premature conclusions don't work in science.

It takes for ever to even arrive at simplest of truth in science.

However once you have arrived at the truth the truth if not corrupt my ignorance is for every true.

Then when one is not ignorant one simply has to take the effort to not step into trap of living outside of the truth.

Rather one has to keep making sure one is within bounds of ones truth.

Or as Tommy Hank used to say in that weird movie that I never understand.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Assertion: "It is impossible that I can kill someone by winking at them"
Why: Because winking does not contain enough momentum to displace the person insofar to cause their death.
New Assertion: "If I wink at someone, it will not cause their death because winking does not have enough momentum."

Winkkill is impossible because it does not follow the law of physics. You are not deriving A out of a void. It is impossible by the virtue of not being possible in the light of currently available information.

It's not possible with the restriction that you have stated: that a typical human wink generates less than a joule of energy and that it has to happen at a particular instance of time.

The restrictions that you have created are a logical statement. It is not possible to destroy a human being with a pressure wave of less than (let's assume) 15 joules from a wink that generates about a milijoule. That is consistent with logic: 0.001 joules < 15 joules.

It's not impossible for all future cases of winking throughout all time to increase the energy released during an eye wink to destroy the solar system, let alone one life. Nothing in the laws of nature prevents that. Your restriction also doesn't account for all cases of photon scattering or any other effects that might cause an earlier natural death of someone about to die from natural causes because of the wink.

Heck, there is nothing to prevent an eye wink from creating a causally independent part of the universe where the rest of existence cannot influence the person winking, can't be observed by them and is in all practical sense dead or does not exist. For example by releasing gravitational waves that interact destructively to move the local part of spacetime beyond some form of rotating singularity. No need for solipsism or mind tricks.

There is a lot of linguistics pretext that goes with this.

I think that the word "impossible" as it is defined does makes sense in the context of singular human potential. There are things that are impossible to a person with a limited lifespan, even if every their thought turned into reality they would be limited by the time they have to spend to make such thoughts.

But the word "impossible" is a misnomer to any sentient immortal entity or an entity with a very long lifespan and access to manipulable energy. Even something like a civilization which is an accumulation of activities spanning generations can virtually achieve any imaginable goal.

The issue with thinking is that it can only be useful after refining the process.

As they say think again.

Ones mind must work in order with truth.

Reality is not malleable.

It is the mind of humans that is malleable.

Thinking could be an optimization of a process that approaches some aspect of reality or an observation of an aspect of reality that can be further generalized or specialized.

I forgot the point I was trying to make.

I forgot the second part of what I was trying to say about this so I wrote down whatever was left of the thought The truly impossible is what's unthinkable I guess.

 

[BurnedOut]

@Glaerhaidh @Cognisant I don't know why both of you are blowing the winkkill example out of proportion. It actually made me laugh quite a bit reading the physics explanations. I meant it colloquially without thinking too deeply about the possibility of an actual winkkill.

The point was to highlight that when there is something that cannot be done, it simply means that there is just not enough information supporting the causality required for its occurrence. Since information is like a flashlight in the dark of universe, the lack of information is what makes something impossible. I think this is what @Glaerhaidh is trying to say.

Glaerhaidh, I feel that you could have simply said that impossible is a relational term (with regards to the information currently available) at the beginning. Everyone here is overanalyzing the simple concept of impossibility to death and even I misunderstood.

Am I misunderstanding again?

 

[DoIMustHaveAnUsername?]

Where is my square-circle?