The Impossible

[Upisoft]

I agree with you, but a lack of evidence is not a proof of impossibility.

Indeed, but you asked:

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

No need to revert to impossibility now.

 

[Resha Caner]

Ah. OK.

 

[Joshua0035]

What would science say is impossible?

Science says it is impossible to go faster then the speed of light. Even if it were possible (as in warp speed on Star Trek)the decay rate is still set at the speed of light. So to go faster would mean an increase in the decay rate in proportion to the increase in speed.

 

[quatona]

You didn't define "float", so I can't say whether I would agree.

Does "hovering" help?

Regardless, one can always define a set of boundary conditions that makes something impossible in theory.

Yes, and even more so in practice.

The question then becomes whether one can enforce those boundary conditions with absolute confidence. There is a difference between "the plate is unlikely to float" and "it is impossible the plate will float".

Yes, and there´s a third one: "Our best explanations don´t allow for this possibility". I think that´s what science, due to its nature, would say.
Now, I have no idea why you are looking for a statement of "absolute confidence". Personally, I think the fact that plates aren´t observed to hover around when being dropped, in combination with the scientific explanation why that is so, is sufficient to say "It´s impossible" for any purpose I can fathom.
But, of course, you are free to put it to the test time and again hoping to get a different result.

Hmm. This is an interesting one. With that said, I think you've changed the question. Science may not claim the possibility of permanence, but that is different from claiming permanence is impossible.

Yes, that´s because science works within a certain frame of reference, and because science is always open to modify its theory when new data or observations come in.
Thus, no, I don´t think science will claim any "impossibility" with "absolute confidence" outside its frame of reference.

But, actually, it´s not that complicated, is it? Theists have the concept of "miracles", and as far as I can tell, this concept is based on the very criterium that something happens which is - by scientific standards - "impossible".

 

[Loudmouth]

No one particular assumption is required. Past scientists played that game for awhile - eliminating assumptions by one trick or another in an attempt to create a system that began with the self-evident. No one was ever successful. Finding a system that does not make this particular assumption merely means we have made a different assumption.

You keep moving the goal posts. You claim that something is an assumption. I show that it isn't an assumption. You then claim that some other assumption is actually being made, and around we go.

OK. I'll ignore the elephant in the room and answer your question. It relates because you asked for examples, and this was an example.

How is it an example? Why is this like pulling teeth? Give me a precise and explicit explanation of what is being assumed.

Yes I understand the difference, but I think you misconstrue what was said. Further, I provided other citations later.

All of which are just as vague.

You showed no such thing, and I already replied to your example.

Now you are running away from the facts. We can start with Newton's Laws of Gravitation. We can then move to the strong and weak force which were tested for temporal changes in this paper:

http://www.broadinstitute.org/~ilya/alexander_shlyakhter/76a_oklo_fundamental_nuclear_constants.pdf

We could then discuss how supernovae are used to test the constancy of fundamental laws:

[astro-ph/9706025] Nucleosynthesis in Type Ia Supernovae

We could also discuss the use of masers to test for the isotropy of spacetime:

Phys. Rev. 133, A1221 (1964): Test of Special Relativity or of the Isotropy of Space by Use of Infrared Masers

Notice how I can cite specific studies related to actual experiments that test the very things that you claim we must assume.

Assumptions are not tested ... though I'm aware people sometimes use that as a colloquial expression. If you test something, you are testing a hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?

I am the one who pointed out the difference, so yes, I understand the difference.

When you make statements like this it seems to me you are still confusing the measuring (the model) and the measurement.

It seems to me that you still can't point to these assumptions.

But this conversation has no point until you answer the other elephant in the room - the one I'm not going to ignore. What authority would you accept on this topic? Obviously not mine, so what?

I would accept evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, and there´s a third one: "Our best explanations don´t allow for this possibility". I think that´s what science, due to its nature, would say.

Newtonian gravitation was our best explanation prior to 1900. That explanation did not allow for a precession in Mercury's orbit . . . and yet there it was.

So did this mean that Mercury was being pushed around the Sun by a supernatural deity? Or did we just have the explanation wrong?

Science opts for the latter, which I am sure you are aware of.

 

[Davian]

I see that you have dramatically edited my post, which appears to have altered its intent. While I do find that intellectually dishonest, let's have a go at it...

I can't help how you feel.

I was referring to the current thread.

I was not.

Exactly. Which is why I didn't provide the definition.

And here I was thinking it was because you never had one (that could pull the term out from under the "impossible" label).

Rather, I want you to answer the question: to what usage of "immaterial consciousness" did your original challenge refer?

General usage, such as on this board.

Are these the threads you refer to? Then why did it take until post #110 for you to reference it? Was it because it took so much digging?

No, it was because you said "maybe you should provide the link."

I just went to the advanced search page and typed in the term and your user name. No "digging" required.

The thread where I used that term is not one you participated in, and it appears I didn't use the term in the thread you did participate in. A thread, which BTW, ended over a year ago. I don't recall why these threads died out.

The mind-body thread died out when you failed to respond to my last post there.

Threads die all the time and for a thousand different reasons. For you to claim you know the reason why (other than your own personal reasons to stop participating in a thread) is nonsense.

Where did I say that? I only said when, not why.

I answered this. Simply repeating what I have already answered gains nothing.

No, you have not answered with anything that would pull the term out from under the "impossible" label.

Yes, they are different words. Are you saying you were requesting a discussion about my definition of immaterial?

No, I did not say that. You implied that you had one. Where it has gone remains a mystery at this point.

Or is there something about the mind-body discussion you wish to continue?

No, I did not say that. The thread remains open, should you ever want to pick up where we left off.

OK. But I'll note two things: 1) It means we're moving on from my OP in this thread.

Who is this "we" that you speak for?

2) I'll just come right out and poison the well. I have no confidence you intend to pursue that discussion in good faith.

You appear to be judging me by the words you are putting in my mouth. So be it.

The term still lacks a positive ontology.

 

[quatona]

Newtonian gravitation was our best explanation prior to 1900. That explanation did not allow for a precession in Mercury's orbit . . . and yet there it was.

So did this mean that Mercury was being pushed around the Sun by a supernatural deity? Or did we just have the explanation wrong?

Science opts for the latter, which I am sure you are aware of.

I am not only aware of it - if I don´t misunderstand your point completely, this was even my very point.

 

[Davian]

I dont understand. What is a "positive ontology"?

A positive ontology - telling us what it *is* - would produce facts about the nature of something. Telling me what it isn't - "immaterial", in this case - won't, leaves him in a can't-get-there-from-here position. Close enough to "impossible" for me.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thus, no, I don´t think science will claim any "impossibility" with "absolute confidence" outside its frame of reference.

It's kind of you to say that.

Yes, and there´s a third one: "Our best explanations don´t allow for this possibility". I think that´s what science, due to its nature, would say.

I'm OK with that. Maybe some would think your phrasing an inconsequential difference from "science says it's impossible", but I think the difference is important.

But, actually, it´s not that complicated, is it? Theists have the concept of "miracles", and as far as I can tell, this concept is based on the very criterium that something happens which is - by scientific standards - "impossible".

I realize this is the definition non-believers put forth ... and unfortunately some Christians agree with it. I don't happen to be one of those who uses that definition.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would accept evidence.

Again, it seems you miss my point ... as do your examples.

I am the one who pointed out the difference, so yes, I understand the difference.

No. You spoke of theory. The word I used was hypothesis. They are two different things.

How is it an example? Why is this like pulling teeth?

Yes, why is it?

Give me a precise and explicit explanation of what is being assumed.

I did, with the Gaussian distribution example, but we'll go through it again.

You keep moving the goal posts. You claim that something is an assumption. I show that it isn't an assumption. You then claim that some other assumption is actually being made, and around we go.

I'll start with an analogy from algebra. If I give you the equation x + y = 5 and ask you to solve it, can you? No, because you have 1 equation with 2 unknowns. However, if an assumption is made, the equation can be solved.

If the assumption is y = 2, the equation becomes x + 2 = 5. We can then solve and get x = 3. But is y = 2 the only assumption we could have made? No. In this case there are an infinite number of possibilities. It seems a rather arbitrary thing to pick a specific value for y. But this is the type of assumption I refer to - a case where more than one option exists and no binding reason can be given to chose one over another.

So, if I were to switch and start off by assuming x = 4, have I triumphantly demonstrated that assuming a value for y was unnecessary? No, because you replaced it with an assumption of x. Would it be moving the goalposts to point out that the assumption has changed from y to x? I don't think so.

Let's now apply this analogy to the famous example of the parallel postulate. Again, we can think of geometry as if we have more unknowns than equations. In this case there are 3 options. For a line and a point not on the line, the number of parallel lines through the point can be A) zero, B) one, or C) more than one. Euclid couldn't prove that the answer was B, so he assumed the answer was B. People spent centuries trying to prove it, but never did. Then, along came the non-Euclideans who said, "Well, if we can't prove it, let's assume something else and see what happens."

One result was Riemannian geometry, which was critical to Einstein. Einstein used Riemannian geometry as the basis for his physics rather than the Euclidean geometry used by Newton. Still, it remains an assumption. No one has proven any one of the three has a binding reason.

So next, let's consider quantum mechanics (QM) and general relativity (GR). They start from different places (they have different assumptions). QM is for the very small. GR is for the very large and/or the very massive. Since QM and GR deal with different things, they rarely interact. But in the case of black holes, you have something very heavy (GR) and something very small (QM). Yet they don't agree. Different assumptions are producing different predictions, and yet QM is considered "right" for the very small and GR is considered "right" for the massive.

Now, we were specifically talking about the assumptions of measuring, and my example was trying to determine if noise is Gaussian. The assumption, as I said, is the confidence level of the fit of the noise to a Gaussian distribution. We don't have a method that will give a yes/no answer to that question. It is important because the associated stochastic math is only valid for Gaussian noise, and there are cases where a different model fits just as well as the Gaussian one. We don't have enough information to choose. What typically happens, though, is that people accept the Gaussian assumption because then the math will work. Despite me posting references to back that up, basically all you have said about those references is that they are "vague".

If they aren't clear, I don't think there is much more I can do. I will post another, but I doubt you will accept it. You see, I thought you might accept the word of the U.S. National Bureau of Standards. Writing for that agency in the book Statistical Concepts in Metrology, Harry Ku says (p.6):

"Consequently, if the measurements follow a normal distribution, we can say a great deal about the measurement process. The question remains: How do we know that this is so from the limited number of measurements on hand? The answer is that we don't. However, in most instances the metrologist may be willing to assume that the measurement process generates numbers that follow a normal distribution approximately, and act as if this were so."

 

[Resha Caner]

General usage, such as on this board.

The term still lacks a positive ontology.

Yes, as "immaterial" is generally used it does lack a positive ontology. But that says nothing about whether it is possible or not.

Tell me whether what is shown at this link is possible.
http://www.christianforums.com/users/269139-albums5356-45763.png

No, I did not say that. You implied that you had one. Where it has gone remains a mystery at this point.

It's here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7686874/

But it appears you didn't say anything about wanting to discuss it, so I'll just leave it at that.

 

[forest flower]

A natural straight banana would be very unlikely.

 

[CabVet]

A natural straight banana would be very unlikely.

Very possible with artificial selection and genetic engineering. We can even make fluorescent fish these days.

 

[forest flower]

I meant no human interference by natural.

 

[durangodawood]

A positive ontology - telling us what it *is* - would produce facts about the nature of something. Telling me what it isn't - "immaterial", in this case - won't, leaves him in a can't-get-there-from-here position. Close enough to "impossible" for me.

I dont see the problem with a lack of a positive ontology.

Its like asking someone if non-liquid water is possible. Well, of course it is, even though "non-liquid" fails as a positive ontology.

 

[quatona]

It's kind of you to say that.

Kind??

I'm OK with that. Maybe some would think your phrasing an inconsequential difference from "science says it's impossible", but I think the difference is important.

Well, it all depends for which purposes you are asking. As far as any purpose I can think of is concerned, the difference is merely academic.

I realize this is the definition non-believers put forth ... and unfortunately some Christians agree with it. I don't happen to be one of those who uses that definition.

It wasn´t meant to be the definition of the term. I was just telling you what all those events that Christians call miracles seem to have in common.

 

[Davian]

Yes, as "immaterial" is generally used it does lack a positive ontology. But that says nothing about whether it is possible or not.

It does when used as an adjective for 'consciousness'. If consciousness is an emergent property of a brain (or silicon, in some future AI), doing away with the matter that constitutes that brain is going to be a problem.

Tell me whether what is shown at this link is possible.
http://www.christianforums.com/users/269139-albums5356-45763.png

Perhaps if you were to rephrase that into English.

It's here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7686874/

Where? There are 114 posts in that thread.

But it appears you didn't say anything about wanting to discuss it, so I'll just leave it at that.

Haven't seen it yet.

 

[Davian]

I dont see the problem with a lack of a positive ontology.

Its like asking someone if non-liquid water is possible. Well, of course it is, even though "non-liquid" fails as a positive ontology.

Non-liquid liquid is possible? How so?

 

[Resha Caner]

Perhaps if you were to rephrase that into English.

I don't see the problem. I realize you have no information about what it *is*, but you do have information about what it *isn't*. For example, as you noted, it is not expressed in English. I can give you more information about what it isn't. As I understand your argument, at some point that allows you to determine it is impossible. So, another clue. It isn't a house.

Still, Durango's example might be better than mine.