The Impossible

[Resha Caner]

What would science say is impossible?

 

[Strathos]

A square circle?

 

[Resha Caner]

A square circle?

That's just a game with definitions.

 

[Strathos]

Just saying that scientifically speaking, aside from logical impossibilities like that and 2+2 = 5 and such, nothing can be ruled to be completely 100% "impossible", although things can be ruled to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999....etc% impossible.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just saying that scientifically speaking, aside from logical impossibilities like that and 2+2 = 5 and such, nothing can be ruled to be completely 100% "impossible", although things can be ruled to be 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999....etc% impossible.

Sure, OK. So what falls in that 99.99999%?

 

[CabVet]

Impossible now or always impossible (even in the future)?

 

[Resha Caner]

Impossible now or always impossible (even in the future)?

I was originally thinking always, but that's a curious question. Is there something science says is impossible now, but won't be in the future?

 

[CabVet]

I was originally thinking always, but that's a curious question. Is there something science says is impossible now, but won't be in the future?

Travel at light speed. I am still thinking of something that will always be impossible.

 

[Resha Caner]

Travel at light speed. I am still thinking of something that will always be impossible.

I think you'll need to clarify. Does science say FTL is impossible now because we lack the technology to do it or because it's physically impossible?

 

[CabVet]

I think you'll need to clarify. Does science say FTL is impossible now because we lack the technology to do it or because it's physically impossible?

I think it is a little of both. We certainly don't have the technology, and there are many models that indicate that it is physically impossible. But there are also other possibilities that can be looked at in the future like worm holes.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think it is a little of both. We certainly don't have the technology, and there are many models that indicate that it is physically impossible. But there are also other possibilities that can be looked at in the future like worm holes.

So is there any scientific model with enough confidence to say something will always be impossible?

 

[CabVet]

So is there any scientific model with enough confidence to say something will always be impossible?

Hmm, I am not sure about physics, and not confident enough to give you a good answer for that. But biologically I can think of one thing that will always be impossible, resurrecting someone after death.

 

[Resha Caner]

But biologically I can think of one thing that will always be impossible, resurrecting someone after death.

Why is that?

 

[CabVet]

Why is that?

Death is an irreversible process.

 

[Resha Caner]

Death is an irreversible process.

I wasn't aware any process is absolutely irreversible.

I am familiar with the idea of an irreversible process as it pertains to engineering - specifically to the thermal cycles of engines. But such processes always include an assumption ... it is adiabatic or something like that. So changing the assumption to allow for an open system changes the result.

What happens in death that makes it final?

 

[Resha Caner]

Biology is my weakness, so I don't claim to know if this is viable science or not, but it does appear some people are looking at reversing the death process:

Death-Defying Tricks, Cells Return to Life | Research in Action | LiveScience

 

[CabVet]

I wasn't aware any process is absolutely irreversible.

This is a great philosophical topic, and we can spend an entire thread just talking about it, but in the specific case of death, irreversibility is in the very definition. I know it is a circular argument (if we can revive something, we can always say it was not really dead).

I am familiar with the idea of an irreversible process as it pertains to engineering - specifically to the thermal cycles of engines. But such processes always include an assumption ... it is adiabatic or something like that. So changing the assumption to allow for an open system changes the result.

What happens in death that makes it final?

That's a great question, I would say it is the break down of molecules responsible for biological processes in the brain. You can't really say that it is the cessation of biological processes because there are ways of stopping the processes yet keep something alive (like freezing).

 

[CabVet]

Biology is my weakness, so I don't claim to know if this is viable science or not, but it does appear some people are looking at reversing the death process:

Death-Defying Tricks, Cells Return to Life | Research in Action | LiveScience

Note that the title of the website is more sensationalistic than the actual title of the article, which is "Cells Return From the Brink of Death". Brink of death ≠ death

 

[Resha Caner]

This is a great philosophical topic, and we can spend an entire thread just talking about it, but in the specific case of death, irreversibility is in the very definition. I know it is a circular argument (if we can revive something, we can always say it was not really dead).

Well, I wasn't going for the philosophical "square circle" types of issues, so we can set that aside.

That's a great question, I would say it is the break down of molecules responsible for biological processes in the brain. You can't really say that it is the cessation of biological processes because there are ways of stopping the processes yet keep something alive (like freezing).

OK. So, per the article I posted, it seems people could investigate preventing that break down. Might it not be that we don't have the technology yet rather than a certifiable impossibility?

 

[Resha Caner]

Note that the title of the website is more sensationalistic than the actual title of the article, which is "Cells Return From the Brink of Death". Brink of death ≠ death

I expected some sensationalism when I saw the title. It's just that I don't have the knowledge base to start reading medical journals and understand what they're doing. It was more to point out that it appears someone is thinking about it.