# If I can imagine it, it is possible!

## Recommended Posts

!

Moderator Note

kristalis,

I have removed one of your posts from this thread as it was wildly off topic. Please do not hijack / derail threads.

##### Share on other sites

You cant use a paradox to prove mathematics is the only truth.

I've shown how using a false system proves that any outcome of that systen is false, so please show a logical example to disprove it otherwise.

btw, russels paradox says ((1 == 1) && ( 1 == (1 / x))) which is false.

But (1 == (( 1 / x) * x)), the set of all sets is an accumulation of itself.

Its not pseudoscience until science proves it wrong. Logic allows for everything we can conceive, we are after all its product.

Edited by DevilSolution

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

kristalis,

I have removed one of your posts from this thread as it was wildly off topic. Please do not hijack / derail threads.

Well I wasn't aware of that. This begs the question where this off topic post has been removed to and secondly what then YodaP and you think the topic is?

As I understand it the topic is about crackpots thinking that anything you can dream up (i.e. imagine) has some probability (i.e. possibility) of via a scientific evidence and proof way of being established as the truth (i.e. scientific fact).

Assuming that absolute truth is not the issue here and assuming that science is the systematic i.e. logic venture towards what we collectively to a certain degree hold true then a post providing the - scientific & broadly held - rules on evidence and proof is on topic. Given a scientific norm that is. Especially so when it is in answer to the thread starters claim I only made assertions. To get the issue past the level of "yes it is" and "no it isn't" true that 2 + 3 = 6 as a normal rule of scientific debate I took it to the next level explaining the rules by rule of thumb, preventing thus the opponent from hiding there. If we subsequently remain in the Monty Python level on a scientific dispute, then we must take it to a higher level still of mathematical quick and dirty proof. If it still remains a dispute we go to a full blown mathematical proof. Which latter I can't provide myself yet know others who can. (they being exact scientists might be taken aback at censorship, when being cornered so I hope I wasn't censored.)

Relevant Illustrations given are regularly given and not deemed off topic so why now then?

I'm not the one breaking the rules as stated by you in the threads concerning them, but YodaP is, in not posing proper argument when challenged.

BTW I'm thus only asking the two or three questions and trying to ascertain what you think the order is, by giving my idea on that, being that BTW the broadly held consensus in science as to be the rules of scientific debate?

Edited by kristalris

##### Share on other sites

Hello Kristalris;

I very much enjoyed the video that you presented, and got a lot of laughter out of it. Thank you. I have never broached this subject before, but would like to take a stab at it, so please consider the following.

kristalris, on 09 Nov 2013 - 12:39 PM, said:

Well, if you can imagine it, it always is indeed possible. This is always true, not only with certifiable crackpots like myself (DSM V as with 50 to 80 % of the population of the world and neigh 100 % for all agreed upon geniuses). It is true until disproven on an agreed upon norm. It is called an hypotheses. Per definition an hypothesis is held to be true until falsified.

It may well be true that a "hypothesis is held to be true until falsified", but it is also true that a hypothesis must be testable in order to falsify it. So is "possible" testable? The problem with the word "possible" is that it has no parameters, so only the consequence of that possibility, in hindsight, is testable after it becomes real. So one is not really testing "possible". Is "imagination" testable? Only after it becomes realized in reality. So I don't see how you can call this a hypothesis, as it is not testable.

Now one could say that "if you can imagine it, it is possible" is a truism. But again, truisms are always true, so how could one know that it is always true? In hindsight, many things that were thought impossible became possible through someone's imagination, but not all things imagined became possible, so we can not call this a truism.

Because the statement begins with the word "If", it implies a relationship between "imagine" and "possible"; "if this, then that". There are two ways to look at this, either "imagine" is a prerequisite to "possible", or "imagine" causes "possible" -- neither are true. Rain turns into snow because of temperature, not imagination, so there are things that are possible that do not require the prerequisite of imagining. Imagination is thought and is produced by the rational aspect of mind, so it can not actually cause a change in reality. Thought has no power over reality, so imagination, on it's own, does not cause anything to be possible.

Think of imagination as you would a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is a very handy tool to have when building a house, but a hammer can not build a house. Imagination is a very handy tool to have when considering possibilities, but imagination can not cause those possibilities to become real.

So I see this as a word game that has nothing to do with reality or logic. The only other way to view this is to say that "imagination" actually causes reality, which is the solipsist's view. Solipsism is nonsense. imo

Do you disagree?

G

##### Share on other sites

Hello Kristalris;

I very much enjoyed the video that you presented, and got a lot of laughter out of it. Thank you. I have never broached this subject before, but would like to take a stab at it, so please consider the following.

It may well be true that a "hypothesis is held to be true until falsified", but it is also true that a hypothesis must be testable in order to falsify it. So is "possible" testable? The problem with the word "possible" is that it has no parameters, so only the consequence of that possibility, in hindsight, is testable after it becomes real. So one is not really testing "possible". Is "imagination" testable? Only after it becomes realized in reality. So I don't see how you can call this a hypothesis, as it is not testable.

Now one could say that "if you can imagine it, it is possible" is a truism. But again, truisms are always true, so how could one know that it is always true? In hindsight, many things that were thought impossible became possible through someone's imagination, but not all things imagined became possible, so we can not call this a truism.

Because the statement begins with the word "If", it implies a relationship between "imagine" and "possible"; "if this, then that". There are two ways to look at this, either "imagine" is a prerequisite to "possible", or "imagine" causes "possible" -- neither are true. Rain turns into snow because of temperature, not imagination, so there are things that are possible that do not require the prerequisite of imagining. Imagination is thought and is produced by the rational aspect of mind, so it can not actually cause a change in reality. Thought has no power over reality, so imagination, on it's own, does not cause anything to be possible.

Think of imagination as you would a tool, like a hammer. A hammer is a very handy tool to have when building a house, but a hammer can not build a house. Imagination is a very handy tool to have when considering possibilities, but imagination can not cause those possibilities to become real.

So I see this as a word game that has nothing to do with reality or logic. The only other way to view this is to say that "imagination" actually causes reality, which is the solipsist's view. Solipsism is nonsense. imo

Do you disagree?

G

Hi G, thanks for your question.

Actually come to think of it it’s even more funny that the breach of immoderate infringement on thread hijacking police has come in as well. I imagined Monty Python possibly showing enormous foresight, and look even this hypothesis proved scientifically accurate.

On a scientific norm solipsism is IMO indeed nonsense. Though baring absolute truth where our solipsism and religious i.e. non-scientific norms are at, we immediately come to Bayes. And then anything can be true by this - unanimously – in science held to be true formula, in which it is so that anything is possible and testable per definition.

A truism doesn’t exist in the Bayesian formula other than an incorrect garbage in prior odds assumption namely what you (implicitly) imagined. The thing is Bayes absolutely always subsequently goes via the likelihood ratios to the norm and subsequent posterior odds to see if something on that norm is true or not. YodaP thinks he is allowed in the – SCIENTIFIC! – Bayes formula to a priori take the prior odds as the posterior. And say that a truism is something that thus is the case immediately. Wrong, wrong, wrong! The scientific i.e. Bayesian formula requires ANY scientist to ALWAYS walk the route of the Bayes formula. (Or the other given routes deterministic et cetara but on which I’m not allowed to elaborate because querulously off topic and even censored.) But does constitute the proof that YodaP is wrong, absolutely scientifically wrong. As so many scientists BTW that don’t or simply can’t understand this. It is not democratic it is a logical / mathematical dictate. This then answers your question on “if” and on a hypothesis. The route/ formula requires to put it in that order, and so always to come up with a testable hypothesis. That is if you want to state that something is true or not like YodaP did in his attempt to crack crackpots like me.

So I place the hypothesis of YdoaP in a scientific context due to the forum in which he placed it. He imagined it was true, yet on his own incorrect norm thinking it was possible, was wrong. That most well trained statisticians/ mathematicians and/or creatively intelligent already knew that what he imagined was falsified (i.e. incorrect) has no baring. It is what he at that moment imagined that is of importance. He can even himself after imagining it possible come to the conclusion that it is falsified. But this I did for him.

Now it would be nice if he thanked me for that. Learn from your mistakes. And owe up to them.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

kristalris. Please do not respond to moderation within the thread - this further derails the already disrupted discussion.

I have re-read the post that was removed and it was difficult to discern any reason it should stay in the thread and there were many obvious off-topic points within it that could drive the thread away from its core points.

Personally I would find your posts easier to respond to and engage with if they were a little less rambling and a lot less condescending.

To repeat - do not respond to moderation within a thread.

##### Share on other sites

In my opinion some things may be. For instance physical things. The monks in the shaolin temple have been implementing a sort of "mind over matter" for years. Now dont get me wrong, the physically impossible cannot be achieved, It is more a case of how far can we stretch possible. For instance you nor I could break a concrete block with out head, yet they could and I personally believe that alongside years of conditioning a mental attitude of If I imagine it, it is possible go hand in hand. I also know of no math that can explain these feats which would 99% of the time be deemed impossible. Look up the 72 shaolin secret martial arts.

As for "I can imagine flying, So I can do it." I dont believe in it because it simply does not work.

##### Share on other sites

Kristalris;

If we are going to continue this discussion, it must be between us and not include negative comments regarding other member's abilities. I do not always agree with YodaP, but have read enough of that member's posts to come to the conclusion that YodaP has a good mind and an understanding of philosophy. So I have no wish to debate the merits of any third-party member's posts, and would like to keep this between us.

The problem that I have with your argument is that you seem to interchange the word "probability" with the word "possibility". They are not the same. Now if the original statement was, "If I can imagine something that fits within the parameters of science and Bayes probability theorem, it is possible!". Then I might have to agree that this is possible, but that is not the case. The original statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible" sets the parameters of "possible" under the parameters of "imagine". Imagination has no parameters.

And according to you, imagination is garbage and does not fall within the rules of Bayes Theorem, as follows:

A truism doesn’t exist in the Bayesian formula other than an incorrect garbage in prior odds assumption namely what you (implicitly) imagined.

So I don't agree that Bayes Theorem even applies in this case.

On a scientific norm solipsism is IMO indeed nonsense. Though baring absolute truth where our solipsism and religious i.e. non-scientific norms are at, we immediately come to Bayes. And then anything can be true by this - unanimously – in science held to be true formula, in which it is so that anything is possible and testable per definition.

I certainly hope you will forgive me for this observation, but it appears as though solipsism, the religious "God" idea, and Bayes Theory have something in common. They have each taken an idea that they "imagine" to be true and applied logic to this idea in order to rationalize it and make it appear to be real. This is not reality. (chuckle)

The scientific i.e. Bayesian formula requires ANY scientist to ALWAYS walk the route of the Bayes formula. (Or the other given routes deterministic et cetara

Lucky for me, I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher. Did you notice that this is the General Philosophy forum, not the General Science forum?

It is not democratic it is a logical / mathematical dictate. This then answers your question on “if” and on a hypothesis. The route/ formula requires to put it in that order, and so always to come up with a testable hypothesis.

The fact that the formula requirments dictate a testable hypothesis indicate that the formula is self serving and somewhat circular, so I would question it's ability to find truth. This formula seems to be a statistical game of probabliities, designed to predict reality, but it does not define reality -- or truth.

G

##### Share on other sites

Kristalris;

If we are going to continue this discussion, it must be between us and not include negative comments regarding other member's abilities. I do not always agree with YodaP, but have read enough of that member's posts to come to the conclusion that YodaP has a good mind and an understanding of philosophy. So I have no wish to debate the merits of any third-party member's posts, and would like to keep this between us.

Because you ask me this so adequately I will. And I agree with your opinion on YodaP. I simply took the OP as a condescending crack at crackpots and I took the same tone in reply playing the condescending crackpot as a reappropriation. Because if we (in general) are in discussion it should be on equal grounds.

The problem that I have with your argument is that you seem to interchange the word "probability" with the word "possibility". They are not the same. Now if the original statement was, "If I can imagine something that fits within the parameters of science and Bayes probability theorem, it is possible!". Then I might have to agree that this is possible, but that is not the case. The original statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible" sets the parameters of "possible" under the parameters of "imagine". Imagination has no parameters.

And according to you, imagination is garbage and does not fall within the rules of Bayes Theorem, as follows:

Quote

A truism doesn’t exist in the Bayesian formula other than an incorrect garbage in prior odds assumption namely what you (implicitly) imagined.

So I don't agree that Bayes Theorem even applies in this case.

kristalris, on 11 Nov 2013 - 4:21 PM, said:

On a scientific norm solipsism is IMO indeed nonsense. Though baring absolute truth where our solipsism and religious i.e. non-scientific norms are at, we immediately come to Bayes. And then anything can be true by this - unanimously – in science held to be true formula, in which it is so that anything is possible and testable per definition.

I certainly hope you will forgive me for this observation, but it appears as though solipsism, the religious "God" idea, and Bayes Theory have something in common. They have each taken an idea that they "imagine" to be true and applied logic to this idea in order to rationalize it and make it appear to be real. This is not reality. (chuckle)

Quote

The scientific i.e. Bayesian formula requires ANY scientist to ALWAYS walk the route of the Bayes formula. (Or the other given routes deterministic et cetara

Lucky for me, I am not a scientist. I am a philosopher. Did you notice that this is the General Philosophy forum, not the General Science forum?

I’ll start my reaction to the above here. Did you notice that the General Philosophy forum is in de Science Forums under scientific rules? Now if it is science then the rule:

if it ain’t Bayes it ain’t science

applies. The Bayes formula fits everything that mathematics can solve. It has the largest scope and will render if used correctly even deterministic reasoning. Now that doesn’t mean to say you should always use Bayes. This follows from Bayes itself when you take the broadly accepted probabilistic rule of Occams razor. The simplest most easy way of dealing with a problem using the least assumptions is – probably (=Bayes) best.

So the Bayes formula taking in as non-garbage the rule of Occam shows that I as a lawyer given the goal of Just law to try and keep the order within democratic and Just boundaries, shows that we lawyers as a rule should only use mathematics in the courts in exceptional cases. And if we do to do it right by bringing in the correct mathematical expert to get it right. Instead of trying to keep the order by using Bayesian nets etc. (edit: Because they are to bloody slow in order to keep the order. In law we don't have the luxury of finding the truth using ten scientists to take ten million dollars in order to find the truth in ten years. Science on the whole can.) The same argument goes – yet to a lesser degree - for using normal language in philosophy.

In an argument different personalities like – as in sales even require - different ways of reasoning. Some like nice short black and white deterministic reasoning. I’d say even the greater part. Most don’t like Bayesian ramblings. I.e. when arguing about the Dutch topography taking into account the workings of the sun and the moon. Because you can’t understand the one without the other, witch to a narrow deterministic mind is an irritating challenge.

Quote

It is not democratic it is a logical / mathematical dictate. This then answers your question on “if” and on a hypothesis. The route/ formula requires to put it in that order, and so always to come up with a testable hypothesis.

The fact that the formula requirments dictate a testable hypothesis indicate that the formula is self serving and somewhat circular, so I would question it's ability to find truth. This formula seems to be a statistical game of probabliities, designed to predict reality, but it does not define reality -- or truth.

The Bayes formula is a mathematical tool and thus not the truth. It is a method for finding the truth. That applies for mathematics on the whole BTW. The Bayes formula can even do absolute truth you simply apply infinity.

Now that doesn’t mean that you are not allowed in science to take quick and dirty shortcuts. As long as you say so: “I’m speculating” makes it scientifically valid; as the speculation forum correctly shows. It is true it is a speculation then. And you are in science not allowed to get into a Monty Python act. You then have to take it to the next level. And that always will be the arbiter Bayes. BTW when I said “garbage in”that was a shortcut. Translating that into Bayes I said: “as a garbage or non-garbage in”. And possible means a probability when translated to Bayes. (EDIT2 Because (small =) possible + (larger =) likely = 100% or small possibility / large possibility = probability. Yet it is of course far more complex then that, hence then the need to revert to mathematics in order to explain in full.)

So anything you can imagine can be true. But be careful with rejecting seeming un-truisms. If someone sais 2 + 3 = 6 given certain evidence on a goal he might still be right. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. The research into our brains more and more goes into the direction that we are all intuitive creatures who are deluded in thinking we are rational. Rational as in deterministic. But Bayes is also rational. We use the Bayes formula more as a logarithm (= adding up instead of multiplying): it looks like a 100% log that you shift over the scales of say Lady Justice. Mathematics will show you that you can do it by multiplying as well as adding, then it fits again.

It is thus the task of the open-minded well trained and experienced mathematician to spot this by – as these sort of mathematicians do – what is the problem? What do you think is the evidence? Oh, but how is this then? To subsequently provide the correct formula’s out of the book, or to correctly construct them complying to (intuitively using Bayes + Occam =>) in this case use say empirical statistics or any other form or combination of mathematical tools.

I saw a National Geographic documentary the other day where like in a Kung Fu temple a expert football player kept on scoring goals even in the dark: reason the psychologists said Bayes in the brain. Good guessing. We even do that in daylight tracking the ball and predicting where it will be because computing it differently will be to slow.

The problem is that those scientists who know they are bad guessers don’t want this to be true. The other problem is that they are in the majority and thus in power. If you were MN / God would you for survival of the species have 80% talent for the lead in R&D 10% talent for the lead in production and 10% talent for the lead in sales? Of course not. The 80% leaders go into production.

K

Edited by kristalris

##### Share on other sites

Kristalris;

After reviewing your last post, I had a lot to think about. Most of the problems with your argument are not due to bad reasoning; they are due to misinformation. This is a commmon problem in the Philosophy forums, and not your doing, as this misinformation is perpetuated by the current attitude toward philosophy.

I am probably not the best person to explain this to you, but you deserve a reasoned explanation rather than ridicule or condescention, and I don't see a lot of philosophers cueing up for the job. My knowledge of philosophy has been gained informally, so you will have to accept my layman's simplified version. It is my hope that I can explain this problem without offending you or the scientists, so please consider:

I’ll start my reaction to the above here. Did you notice that the General Philosophy forum is in de Science Forums under scientific rules?

I think this is the crux of the problem. Philosophy has never been under scientific rules, science has always been under philosophic rules. You may have heard the statement that, "Science is a child of philosophy."? But you have never heard that philosophy is a child of science, which is because science got it's rules from philosophy.

Although science and philosophy share a common root, they are very different disciplines, and this difference is what is not well understood. Consider that philosophy started out as a discipline that studied what is real and true, then early on philosophy found that some things that are real and true are "fixed", others are not. These "fixed" truths are true to all people no matter the perspective and no matter the time; such as, a book which is a "fixed" truth. A book will remain a book from one day to the next no matter how many people look at it, it will still be a book and will still be in the same place unless some cause moves or changes it. As more and more was discovered about "fixed" truths, an entire discipline evolved to study these "fixed" truths. That discipline is science, and the "fixed" truths are now called facts. Science studies the facts of reality.

Philosophy continued to study truths that are not "fixed" and the unknown. A truth that is not "fixed", is a truth that is relative to perspective and/or time, as time can change truth and each different perspective can have it's own truth. The unknown is extremely difficult to study because it is just too easy to imagine what we wish the "unknown" to be and rationalize our imaginations into supposed truth. So the discipline of philosophy must adhere to much more strident rules, that science does not have to deal with. Philosophy studies the truth of reality.

Although the study of probabilities is based in science, math and fact, the results of the calculations are probable--not truth. Probabilities study predictability for purposes of decision making, control, and power as regards the unknown. This is not a study of reality or truth.

This follows from Bayes itself when you take the broadly accepted probabilistic rule of Occams razor. The simplest most easy way of dealing with a problem using the least assumptions is – probably (=Bayes) best.

This may well be true, but it is also true that one can always find a solution to a problem while considering only one assumption. That assumption is that the problem fits the solution. (chuckle) Philosophers are sticklers about reality and truth, so we like the solution to fit the problem, which can sometimes complicate things, but we really do like truth, so we put up with the complications.

So the Bayes formula taking in as non-garbage the rule of Occam shows that I as a lawyer given the goal of Just law to try and keep the order within democratic and Just boundaries, shows that we lawyers as a rule should only use mathematics in the courts in exceptional cases. And if we do to do it right by bringing in the correct mathematical expert to get it right. Instead of trying to keep the order by using Bayesian nets etc. (edit: Because they are to bloody slow in order to keep the order. In law we don't have the luxury of finding the truth using ten scientists to take ten million dollars in order to find the truth in ten years. Science on the whole can.) The same argument goes – yet to a lesser degree - for using normal language in philosophy.

I retired from law and would like to discuss this, but it would take us off topic. So another time.

It is not democratic it is a logical / mathematical dictate. This then answers your question on “if” and on a hypothesis. The route/ formula requires to put it in that order, and so always to come up with a testable hypothesis.

Probability does not equal truth, at most it equals "close to truth--probably". So no it does not answer my question on "if". Bayes theorem is also not fact, it is theory. Truth can be based on fact, but it can not be based on probability, and can only be considered on theory.

The Bayes formula is a mathematical tool and thus not the truth. It is a method for finding the truth. That applies for mathematics on the whole BTW. The Bayes formula can even do absolute truth you simply apply infinity.

Here you are mixing science and philosophy again. Mathmatics is a study of facts that can find more facts, but that does not mean that these facts will find a larger and unknown truth. And there is no such thing as "absolute truth". It does not exist. In order for a truth to be "absolute", it would have to be true in all times from all perspectives, so it would be a "fixed" truth, which means that it would be a fact. Try going into the science forums and telling them that you have found THE ABSOLUTE FACT. Let me know how that works out for you. (chuckle chuckle)

Now that doesn’t mean that you are not allowed in science to take quick and dirty shortcuts. As long as you say so: “I’m speculating” makes it scientifically valid; as the speculation forum correctly shows. It is true it is a speculation then.

It may be true that it is a speculation, but that does not make it a philosophical truth. This may be part of the problem that blurs the distinction between philosophy and science. When science started to speculate, it may have also started to view philosophy as speculation. Speculation is based in some facts; philosophy is based in some facts. Speculation deals with unknowns; philosophy deals with unknowns. Speculation is often pseudo-science; do people think that philosophy is pseudo-science? Maybe. This may be how the comparison got started.

Philosophy holds a very high standard for truth and speculation does not meet that standard.

And possible means a probability when translated to Bayes. (EDIT2 Because (small =) possible + (larger =) likely = 100% or small possibility / large possibility = probability. Yet it is of course far more complex then that, hence then the need to revert to mathematics in order to explain in full.)

But possible does not mean a probability in philosophy.

So anything you can imagine can be true.

Here you are playing a word game that destroys your logic. The sentence was, "If I can imagine it, it is possible". It was not, "If I can imagine it, it CAN be possible." This is yet another example of changing the problem to fit your solution. Philosophy studies that which is real and true, so we can not adjust reality to fit with our solutions. The original statement is not true.

The problem is that those scientists who know they are bad guessers don’t want this to be true.

Maybe so, but this is still about "guesses" and probabilities, it is not about truth. This is a philosophy forum and we deal in truths. The statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible." is not true. It is a word game.

Consider:

If the statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible." were true, then I could imagine that it would be true for me and false for you; therefore, anything that you imagined would become impossible. But being the clever person that you are, you could simultaneously imagine that everything that you imagine is true, but everything that I imagine is false; then neither of us could imagine anything that would be possible. But then Harry Potter, who is more clever than both of us combined, could see this problem and immediately imagine that everything he imagines is possible, but everything that anyone else in the world imagines is not possible, so he would win. He would be King of the World, Almighty God, the beginning and the end--a solipsist. But I thought you agreed that solipsism is nonsense.

What do you think Monty could make of this?

G

##### Share on other sites

Gees,

Posted Today, 07:55 AM

Kristalris;

After reviewing your last post, I had a lot to think about. Most of the problems with your argument are not due to bad reasoning; they are due to misinformation. This is a commmon problem in the Philosophy forums, and not your doing, as this misinformation is perpetuated by the current attitude toward philosophy.

I am probably not the best person to explain this to you, but you deserve a reasoned explanation rather than ridicule or condescention, and I don't see a lot of philosophers cueing up for the job. My knowledge of philosophy has been gained informally, so you will have to accept my layman's simplified version. It is my hope that I can explain this problem without offending you or the scientists, so please consider:

kristalris, on 12 Nov 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I’ll start my reaction to the above here. Did you notice that the General Philosophy forum is in de Science Forums under scientific rules?

I think this is the crux of the problem. Philosophy has never been under scientific rules, science has always been under philosophic rules. You may have heard the statement that, "Science is a child of philosophy."? But you have never heard that philosophy is a child of science, which is because science got it's rules from philosophy.

Well of course I have yet this is the part of philosophy that is part of science. There is also a religious forum that thus looks on religion through the spectacles of science: i.e. the specs of Bayes. So if you like to philosophize outside Bayes be my guest, but then please don’t claim that you are reasoning logical. So yes I a priori already acknowledged that philosophy is broader than science. Outside science you have IMO the right to believe what you like, be it religion or philosophy.

So outside the realm of science the OP could be held to be correct. Like the absolute truth of God in high heaven if you like.

Although science and philosophy share a common root, they are very different disciplines, and this difference is what is not well understood. Consider that philosophy started out as a discipline that studied what is real and true, then early on philosophy found that some things that are real and true are "fixed", others are not. These "fixed" truths are true to all people no matter the perspective and no matter the time; such as, a book which is a "fixed" truth. A book will remain a book from one day to the next no matter how many people look at it, it will still be a book and will still be in the same place unless some cause moves or changes it. As more and more was discovered about "fixed" truths, an entire discipline evolved to study these "fixed" truths. That discipline is science, and the "fixed" truths are now called facts. Science studies the facts of reality.

Sorry mate but there never has been a single book that has been in a fixed place I’m sure. Then you would have to provide a fixed reference place to what that book was fixed. The only thing mathematics and logic does is provide the existence or non-existence or partial existence in the measurable change. That doesn’t then exclude the possibility to dream up anything you like and a priori consider the possibility that it is true. That as such has nothing to do with the mathematics.

Philosophy continued to study truths that are not "fixed" and the unknown. A truth that is not "fixed", is a truth that is relative to perspective and/or time, as time can change truth and each different perspective can have it's own truth. The unknown is extremely difficult to study because it is just too easy to imagine what we wish the "unknown" to be and rationalize our imaginations into supposed truth. So the discipline of philosophy must adhere to much more strident rules, that science does not have to deal with. Philosophy studies the truth of reality.

Indeed, what I just said. IMO meta physics is science and philosophy at the same time as long as the relationships you assume can be described correctly accurately in compliance of everything you hold true.

Although the study of probabilities is based in science, math and fact, the results of the calculations are probable--not truth. Probabilities study predictability for purposes of decision making, control, and power as regards the unknown. This is not a study of reality or truth.

Like I already stated Bayes can most certainly even cover absolute truths. You fill in infinity. I.e. since the cave of Plato we know that we will never reach an absolute truth other than by guessing. (= Bayes BTW) Even the question whether there is an absolute truth :God or whatever: I believe a never to be known deterministic begin state at any given point in time and a subsequent game of Yin and Yang between pure chance and deterministic boundaries, we will never know, other than getting very close to that absolute truth via Bayes and accurate scientific observation. Being the latter on Occam then better (more probable) than having a God and also much better than having something from nothing magic by Krauss et all. The latter misusing mathematics.

Quote

This follows from Bayes itself when you take the broadly accepted probabilistic rule of Occams razor. The simplest most easy way of dealing with a problem using the least assumptions is – probably (=Bayes) best.

This may well be true, but it is also true that one can always find a solution to a problem while considering only one assumption. That assumption is that the problem fits the solution. (chuckle) Philosophers are sticklers about reality and truth, so we like the solution to fit the problem, which can sometimes complicate things, but we really do like truth, so we put up with the complications.

Apart from in pure mathematics will you find this truth, other than maybe guessing correctly the absolute truth of a TOE in such an accurate way that all subsequent predictions meet the following tests to that degree of accuracy. But that is Bayes again.

Quote

So the Bayes formula taking in as non-garbage the rule of Occam shows that I as a lawyer given the goal of Just law to try and keep the order within democratic and Just boundaries, shows that we lawyers as a rule should only use mathematics in the courts in exceptional cases. And if we do to do it right by bringing in the correct mathematical expert to get it right. Instead of trying to keep the order by using Bayesian nets etc. (edit: Because they are to bloody slow in order to keep the order. In law we don't have the luxury of finding the truth using ten scientists to take ten million dollars in order to find the truth in ten years. Science on the whole can.) The same argument goes – yet to a lesser degree - for using normal language in philosophy.

I retired from law and would like to discuss this, but it would take us off topic. So another time.

Quote

It is not democratic it is a logical / mathematical dictate. This then answers your question on “if” and on a hypothesis. The route/ formula requires to put it in that order, and so always to come up with a testable hypothesis.

Probability does not equal truth, at most it equals "close to truth--probably". So no it does not answer my question on "if". Bayes theorem is also not fact, it is theory. Truth can be based on fact, but it can not be based on probability, and can only be considered on theory.

Not true again just fill in infinity. Bayes accepts you assuming for instance that the universe is infinite. Given then this absolute truth you can see if it can be made to fit the rest of your observed of assumed absolute truths. Logic and mathematics are inherently about taking absolute truths. So Bayes in fact also dictates that you take the universe not to be infinite to see how that can be made to fit the picture.

Quote

The Bayes formula is a mathematical tool and thus not the truth. It is a method for finding the truth. That applies for mathematics on the whole BTW. The Bayes formula can even do absolute truth you simply apply infinity.

Here you are mixing science and philosophy again. Mathmatics is a study of facts that can find more facts, but that does not mean that these facts will find a larger and unknown truth. And there is no such thing as "absolute truth". It does not exist. In order for a truth to be "absolute", it would have to be true in all times from all perspectives, so it would be a "fixed" truth, which means that it would be a fact. Try going into the science forums and telling them that you have found THE ABSOLUTE FACT. Let me know how that works out for you. (chuckle chuckle)

Well Bayes would answer there either is or isn’t an absolute truth. You will have to investigate both. The one that fits best is ultimately maybe even to be taken as the absolute truth op to a point and baring any future observations that are observed not to fit this absolute truth. I.e. Law of Everything. What you by excluding Bayes are on about is, I guess that there is room in philosophy for illogical reasoning. Well, like I said there is, but then you are outside science. I’d like to philosophize inside science. Bayes is the ultimate arbiter of logic, logic cannot be stretched further . No Bayes = no logic = no science = no scientific philosophy. Claiming science then = pseudo-science.

Bayes + all known (to individual see OP) or known observations to science on the whole (or in part by norms held in certain fields) = correct scientific procedure in the first and science in the latter. => OP =/= science or scientifically valid philosophy.

Quote

Now that doesn’t mean that you are not allowed in science to take quick and dirty shortcuts. As long as you say so: “I’m speculating” makes it scientifically valid; as the speculation forum correctly shows. It is true it is a speculation then.

It may be true that it is a speculation, but that does not make it a philosophical truth. This may be part of the problem that blurs the distinction between philosophy and science. When science started to speculate, it may have also started to view philosophy as speculation. Speculation is based in some facts; philosophy is based in some facts. Speculation deals with unknowns; philosophy deals with unknowns. Speculation is often pseudo-science; do people think that philosophy is pseudo-science? Maybe. This may be how the comparison got started.

No, like I stated earlier Bayes deals with all that.

Philosophy holds a very high standard for truth and speculation does not meet that standard.

You may believe in an illogical and or un-observed truth but not in science.

Quote

And possible means a probability when translated to Bayes. (EDIT2 Because (small =) possible + (larger =) likely = 100% or small possibility / large possibility = probability. Yet it is of course far more complex then that, hence then the need to revert to mathematics in order to explain in full.)

But possible does not mean a probability in philosophy.

Quote

So anything you can imagine can be true.

Here you are playing a word game that destroys your logic. The sentence was, "If I can imagine it, it is possible". It was not, "If I can imagine it, it CAN be possible." This is yet another example of changing the problem to fit your solution. Philosophy studies that which is real and true, so we can not adjust reality to fit with our solutions. The original statement is not true.

Oeps, I guess I got the wording of the OP wrong. Meant it to be the same. Anyway the conclusion stands. (I don’t see that much difference between the one and the other but I meant the OP wordings.)

Quote

The problem is that those scientists who know they are bad guessers don’t want this to be true.

Maybe so, but this is still about "guesses" and probabilities, it is not about truth. This is a philosophy forum and we deal in truths. The statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible." is not true. It is a word game.

Edit oeps: the statement given by you is correct and the OP isn't is my position.

Well, we agree that the OP is not true. And indeed it is a word game. To a degree. Even if you take the entire OP it remains incorrect. Ultimately we will reach the limit of what we can measure and observe and logically via Bayes can string together. Even then there will be the Bayes / Plato cave.

Edit 2: The point I think is also central too your error in reasoning is that you mix up deterministic reasoning with Bayes in the sense that you think a la Rutherford that deterministic is superior in a way. Correct Bayesian reasoning in no way conflicts with correct deterministic reasoning or any other correctly used "language"of logic. Yet it does have a much broader scope, unless you accept an extreme error rate using deterministic reasoning. That is logic. So it even reigns over verbal logic as opposed to mathematical logic. Language that we are using is nicely vague and works thus better because faster in lots of area's. The example given in law thus is not off topic. The scope of the OP is namely implicitly stated infinite.

That Bayesian probabilistic reasoning thus rules all of science isn't in conflict with the fact that it is an extremely marginal affair for the times you actually have to resort to it.

Consider:

If the statement, "If I can imagine it, it is possible." were true, then I could imagine that it would be true for me and false for you; therefore, anything that you imagined would become impossible. But being the clever person that you are, you could simultaneously imagine that everything that you imagine is true, but everything that I imagine is false; then neither of us could imagine anything that would be possible. But then Harry Potter, who is more clever than both of us combined, could see this problem and immediately imagine that everything he imagines is possible, but everything that anyone else in the world imagines is not possible, so he would win. He would be King of the World, Almighty God, the beginning and the end--a solipsist. But I thought you agreed that solipsism is nonsense.

What do you think Monty could make of this?

Montgomery renowned for his sense of humour would probably of laughed his head off.

K.

Edited by kristalris

##### Share on other sites

Made no argument? Hilarious: you don't even grasp Monty Python that take the mickey out of your way of reasoning.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/possible possible means per definition especially in a scientific context a statistical possibility. If you imagine it it thus is the hypothesized a priori or prior odds. Only logically if you have absolute proof (I indeed assert that you don't state that or want to state that) can prevent you from making the fallacy of hindsight bias. You may thus logically and thus scientifically take - absolutely - anything you imagine to be true. As an hypothesis that is. This stands even if science as such already had the falsification on the highest level of proof possible before you imagined anything. Or if you imagine something that you already know to be untrue. In that case you are of bad faith, because a fraud. I already explained this sufficiently for any high school kid should be able to understand. Now I've even bothered to elaborate. These aren't thus simple assertions but a complete logically fine argument. You really don't get further than: "no it isn't / yes it is" Hilarious.

Anyway Krauss et all imagine that something can come from nothing. I.e. believe in magic because it is a contradiction. The imagine that this is possible because the mathematics shows that it is, given certain assumptions such as that c = max is the only way to interpret all the known data. Now what if this indeed proves true? (even though being far less probable than a trillion to the trillionth) Or if it proves impossible? Which on a reasonable norm has already been done, even Krauss acknowledges this stating improbable but true.

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.

It may well be true that a "hypothesis is held to be true until falsified", but it is also true that a hypothesis must be testable in order to falsify it.

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.

##### Share on other sites

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.

There's plenty of scientific theory's (not even hypotheses actual thoery's) that compete within physics, both are used for specific tasks are known to be accurate in the way that they are used but ultimately contradict each other in some for or another. Both theory's are true scientifically until proven otherwise as they both are proven by the field inwhich they are used.

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.

Firstly; There is some ultiamte truth behind Goldbach's Conjecture, one way or the other it is true or it is false, because its not false its equally as true. I imagine it could be true, i also imagine it could be false, if i couldnt imagine it to be true; it would be false.

An example is that i cant imagine a number or form of logic that has no abstract application, i can imagine a form of logic that draws an abstract relationship between the speed of light and my friends cat. If i cant imagine it, it is false, if i can its true, "if i can imagine it" to be true but i weigh that its probably false then "it is possible" but it probably doesnt exist.

As previously states "can" exist and "will" exist are very different.

Referring back to the OP, i replied:

Btw, russels paradox says ((1 == 1) && ( 1 == (1 / x))) which is false.

But (1 == (( 1 / x) * x)), the set of all sets is an accumulation of itself.

Logic allows for everything we can conceive, we are after all its product.

Essentially anything that exists through logical deduction must necessarily exist, as a process of its own logic. If we cant conceive it, it doesnt exist, if we can then it exists as a representation of some model of reality, tied to it directly via the system that creates both.

Remember how powerful science is before you say anything is impossible, to say something is impossible is less scientific than saying everything is possible. (and less imaginative )

##### Share on other sites

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.

OH touchy are we? Sorry mate but you are making a complete illogical hash out of it.

This stems from your idea that philosophy is some sort of exercise that can be done outside of science i.e. logic. And indeed it can as you so aptly prove.

Contrary to you then, I’m a layman concerning deep religious and philosophical thoughts that can’t be made to fit logic in any way. It’s not so much me being a layman on philosophy but your apparent lack of understanding logic i.e. Bayes. Look mate, if it doesn’t fit Bayes it doesn’t fit logic and thus doesn’t fit science. Period. You seem to contest this, even though it’s basic science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#History

Now you can falsify this by showing one example that of a true / untrue statement that can’t logically be dealt with via Bayes yet can be dealt with any other tool of logic and / or mathematics.

Again Bayes is as far as mathematics can stretch in order to comply to what is logically possible.

Other tools of logic such as say deterministic reasoning have a far smaller scope. I.e. you have to then accept the fault rate. With Bayes the fault rate is the smallest possible. But you have then to fill in intuitively as a hypothesis that can be tested what you believe possible. Thus exactly that what you pose in the OP the work of crackpots. So Einstein believing SR was possible before he studied physics and got the mathematics for it was an unscientific crackpot and afterwards a genius crackpot all the same.

Furthermore you seem to think that there is something in science besides logic and its tools and observations. All of science proper is built around that. The rest is pseudo-science. Alas a lot of that roaming about within the universities and acclaimed scientists of the world. So what the hell are you talking about when you think there is something more or other?

Above that you keep on hashing up absolute truth (seemingly only possible in pure mathematical situations) and reality that you – with the exclusion of crackpots – know of. And again good old Bayes even covers absolute truth, so you excluding Bayes excludes all logic and thus science. Bayes has no boundaries in its possibility to describe any truth. Other than that it is very cumbersome to work with if applied correctly.

Now simply admit to being wrong, for you are.

Oh and BTW your last sentence is a strawman. An hypothesis is - per definition - ultimately what bayes makes of it. And that is not what you make it out to be. I.e. a fallacy of hindsight or authority.

Edited by kristalris

##### Share on other sites

Essentially anything that exists through logical deduction must necessarily exist, as a process of its own logic. If we cant conceive it, it doesnt exist, if we can then it exists as a representation of some model of reality, tied to it directly via the system that creates both.

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.

Look mate, if it doesn’t fit Bayes it doesn’t fit logic and thus doesn’t fit science. Period. You seem to contest this, even though it’s basic science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes'_theorem#History

Now you can falsify this by showing one example that of a true / untrue statement that can’t logically be dealt with via Bayes yet can be dealt with any other tool of logic and / or mathematics.

Again Bayes is as far as mathematics can stretch in order to comply to what is logically possible.

Other tools of logic such as say deterministic reasoning have a far smaller scope. I.e. you have to then accept the fault rate. With Bayes the fault rate is the smallest possible. But you have then to fill in intuitively as a hypothesis that can be tested what you believe possible. Thus exactly that what you pose in the OP the work of crackpots. So Einstein believing SR was possible before he studied physics and got the mathematics for it was an unscientific crackpot and afterwards a genius crackpot all the same.

Furthermore you seem to think that there is something in science besides logic and its tools and observations. All of science proper is built around that. The rest is pseudo-science. Alas a lot of that roaming about within the universities and acclaimed scientists of the world. So what the hell are you talking about when you think there is something more or other?

Above that you keep on hashing up absolute truth (seemingly only possible in pure mathematical situations) and reality that you – with the exclusion of crackpots – know of. And again good old Bayes even covers absolute truth, so you excluding Bayes excludes all logic and thus science. Bayes has no boundaries in its possibility to describe any truth. Other than that it is very cumbersome to work with if applied correctly.

Now simply admit to being wrong, for you are.

Oh and BTW your last sentence is a strawman. An hypothesis is - per definition - ultimately what bayes makes of it. And that is not what you make it out to be. I.e. a fallacy of hindsight or authority.

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.

##### Share on other sites

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 said it was a representation "tied" to reality, or in other words its mapped to reality, it is as implied a representation.

Essentially anything that exists through logical deduction must necessarily exist, as a process of its own logic. If we cant conceive it, it doesnt exist, if we can then it exists as a representation of some model of reality, tied to it directly via the system that creates both.

These terms explain things like gravity which are fundamentally intangible objects which we "represent" through the use of logic. The fact that your house exists and gravity exists only proves that the representation itself is true, the drawing and gravity are both only representations of the truth, tied to the logic that both do exist. Or else she wouldnt have drawn a house and newton wouldnt have created an equation for gravity.

Let me explain the first point of that statement with a question; Can you create for me some logical system or abstract notion that has absolutely no relation to reality? Any number at all, any formula, any notion, anything at all, that isnt some representation of reality. If you can im trumped otherwise the point is that every form of logic that exists only exists because its mapped to some form of reality. Therefor through logical deduction you can say it exists. Even if you have the logic and not the relation to reality, that logic fits somewhere.

Edited by DevilSolution

##### Share on other sites

Can you create for me some logical system or abstract notion that has absolutely no relation to reality?

Sure, I can point out any number of toy systems logicians have made up that have absolutely no extensional semantics. Or would you rather me construct one of my own?

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

A note to everyone, let's tone down the usage of words designed to get a rise out of each other. No more trolling/flaming to emphasize your points, you don't need it.

##### Share on other sites

Sure, I can point out any number of toy systems logicians have made up that have absolutely no extensional semantics. Or would you rather me construct one of my own?

Please do. Explain to me what symbols you use and what each represents

Edited by DevilSolution

##### Share on other sites

I'm still reeling from the knowledge i can't be a centaur... I certainly can imagine being one...

##### Share on other sites

I'm still reeling from the knowledge i can't be a centaur... I certainly can imagine being one...

Do you have absolute proof that you can't be a centaur? What is a centaur absolutly exactly? Could there be stipulative definitions on what a centaur is? Could it mean a methaphore of something that you actualy possibly can be?

Even taken it to be an magical / mythical beast then still where do you want to get the absolute proof from that you aren't possibly to be one?

Well, absolute proof aside: a priori the chance that it can't be true is extremely larger than the chance that you can. There is further more no more evidence availeble to provide any other likelyhood ratio so on a norm held by most if not all scientists what you immagine is possible yet only to an extremly laugheble small degree and on any scientificaly held norm falsified shortly after the possibility you imagined it to be true emerged. Proving the title true and the OP false.

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.

EQ

Is this anywhere within the realm of science? You've lost me with the: "you can't get evidence from worlds which never happend." You can. Namely seeing either evidnece that contradicts this or the observation that no evididence is Obvious either way. See the centauer.

Q

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.

EQ

According to the rules of the site we are within scientific bounds? What within science can "possible" mean by definition than possibly so and thus probably not?

Edited by ydoaPs
fixed quote tags

##### Share on other sites

Do you have absolute proof that you can't be a centaur? What is a centaur absolutly exactly? Could there be stipulative definitions on what a centaur is? Could it mean a methaphore of something that you actualy possibly can be?

Even taken it to be an magical / mythical beast then still where do you want to get the absolute proof from that you aren't possibly to be one?

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...

##### Share on other sites

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...

Dont dismiss science, they built jurassic park right? Seriously though, gene splicing could probably make this possible. Scientifically not much isnt possible, not much at all.

##### Share on other sites

Dont dismiss science, they built jurassic park right? Seriously though, gene splicing could probably make this possible. Scientifically not much isnt possible, not much at all.

Actually no, no one has built Jurassic Park, it was a movie, and since i am by definition not a centaur making a centaur by any method would not make me a centaur...

##### Share on other sites

Actually no, no one has built Jurassic Park, it was a movie, and since i am by definition not a centaur making a centaur by any method would not make me a centaur...

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT WAS A MOVIE? its the best documentary made. ever.

You could scientifically become a centaur, whether thats the same as who or what you are now is irrelevant to the fact its possible you could become a centuar. The beef is with science not philosophy. You argument is the same as saying the me of 5 minutes time is not the same as me now....

## Create an account

Register a new account