What does it mean for something to be possible, plausible, or probable?

[Michael]

But is that what the word “possible” really means? Well, yes and no. Possible is a word that is intended to mean that something may or may not exist (or may or may not have occurred) based on our understanding of how things work. The critical part of this is that there must be some sort of evidence to point to in order to say that something/someone/some event, is possible. WLC even gets close to this in his unicorn example. We know, based on the study of evolution and biology, that Unicorns are not possible beings in our universe because no evidence exists to show their possible existence and evidence does exist to show how the lineage of horses includes no characteristics that would produce the anatomical features of a unicorn. So WLC correctly asserts that unicorns are not possible in this universe, but is it true that they are possible in other universes?

I'm still struggling with your use of the term "possible" and how it applies to your claim about photon redshift being related to "space expansion". In the example from your OP, you've *ruled out* even the possibility of a unicorn based on a perceived lack of evidence in the DNA record.

If we applied the same logic to your redshift argument, there is *no evidence* that "space expansion" has any effect on a photon, therefore it's not "possible" either! Doppler shift is caused by *moving objects*, not space expansion. While *moving objects* remains a "possible" cause of photon redshift, by your logic, space expansion claims can be *ruled out* as being "possible" due to a complete lack of evidence in physics.

 

[Michael]

Okay, so the take home point for the word “possible” is that in order to assert that something is possible to exist or have occurred, you need some piece of evidence that it exists in order to point to it and say it is a possible explanation.

I can use Doppler Shift experiments to demonstrate that moving objects have an empirical effect on photons (redshift/blueshift). It's therefore "possible" that moving objects are the "cause" of photon redshift from space.

Likewise, I can demonstrate that various types of inelastic scattering all have a tangible effect on photon redshift/blueshift. All types of inelastic scattering in space are therefore "possible".

Compare and contrast that with the fact that you cannot demonstrate that "space" does any magical expansion tricks or that it has any tangible effect on a photon's momentum in a real experiment. It's therefore *impossible* for space expansion to be a cause of photon redshift by your own standards. Congrats. You've demonstrated that LCDM theory is "not possible".

 

[TBDude65]

Perhaps it's best to qualify the first usage of such terms in an argument or discussion, because I don't hold with the same usages as you describe.

That is the point of this post. To clarify how these terms should be used in the context of their definitions.

 

[TBDude65]

I simply note where you took an "observation" (redshift) and subjectively claimed (apparently on faith) that the "cause" was something unrelated to anything that has ever seen in labs on Earth. It's a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab).

Whether it's "good" (correct) faith, or "bad" (incorrect) belief, remains to be seen.

I'm simply noting where your beliefs are rooted in processes and ideas that you can demonstrate in a lab, and where they deviate from empirical laboratory knowledge.



I personally would indeed say that LCDM theory is a form of "bad faith", meaning it's invalid. Faith in the unseen is neither good nor bad by itself IMO, but one's faith can conflict with the empirical evidence, which it does in this case. There's ample evidence of perfectly "natural" explanations for photon redshift.



In this case, I probably did use it in that context, but I'm not suggesting that all forms of "faith" are "weak" or "bad".



But you haven't even technically demonstrated that it's empirically "possible", let alone the most "probable cause" of photon redshift. How did you go from "photon redshift happens", to "space expansion did it"?



We also observe an x-ray background too, and the sources are the same, namely all the stars in the sky. Eddington predicted the background temperature of the universe to within a half of a degree on his first attempt based on nothing but the scattering of starlight on "dust" in space. So what if there's all kinds of wavelengths from sun in space? What does that have to do with demonstrating that it's even physically "possible" for "space" to do magical expansion tricks? How are you physically defining "space", and how does it 'expand'? What "lab experiment" verifies that your explanation is a "possible" cause of photon redshift?



Unfortunately all those collider experiments at LHC blew SUSY theory and WIMP theory out of water, as did LUX, PandaX, etc. Sorry to burst your bubble, but LHC hasn't been kind to LCDM theory, not even a little.



I suspect that you simply haven't studied these topics as much as I have.



How would we get from "possible" to "probable"? It's technically "possible" that space genies are responsible for "photon redshift" too, but how "probable" is that "possibility"?

I can cite several *demonstrated* lab processes that *cause* photon redshift. That might allow us to claim some or all of them are "probable" causes of photon redshift, and empirically preferable to "space genies".



No, I'm simply trying to decide how you determined that "space genies" wasn't a "likely" explanation, whereas "space expansion" seems to work for you.



What good is the claim "space expansion did it" as it relates to the *cause* of volcanoes? I'm not about to require you to recreate each process that you put forth as a "cause" in the lab, but before you introduce *supernatural* constructs, I'd at least expect you to rule out the more likely causes. There are *many demonstrated* actual "causes" of photon redshift, and none of them involve "expanding space".



That probably depends on what you're trying to claim is the "cause". If you expect me to believe "God did it", I'd expect to see some evidence of that assertion. Wouldn't you?



Then you can't logically cite collider experiments as being helpful to your claims related to photon redshift.



Huh? No. Moving objects are "observed in nature" and they cause photon redshift. Ditto for various types of inelastic scattering. These are *empirical verified possible* causes of photon redshift. You haven't even demonstrate that space expansion is a 'possible' cause of photon redshift because you haven't demonstrated the space expansion has any effect on a photon.



No, it's not how Doppler shift works. Doppler shift works by *moving objects*, not "space expansion". Notice the difference?



Oh, but there is a difference. Everything you just talked about is related to *moving objects*, not "space expansion". You're essentially (well astronomers probably mislead you) using an equivocation fallacy in your argument. It basically goes something like "object movement causes photon redshift" and "space expansion" is the "same as" Doppler shift. It's not the same.



No, I'm convinced that Doppler shift will be related to moving objects and moving objects will cause photon redshift (and blueshift). I'm not convinced that "Space expansion" is even a "possible" cause of photon redshift.



True, but one concept can be falsified if not the other.



When did you demonstrate the existence of "space expansion" again?



Yet you failed to demonstrate the existence of "space expansion" or that it has any effect on a single photon before pointing at the sky and claiming "space expansion did it"? How does that double standard work?



Care to explain how your "space expansion" claim isn't an argument from ignorance by your own standards?



I get the feeling you misunderstood my point because I didn't make that claim, but you're essentially (maybe not to your knowledge) making that claim with respect to "space expansion" and what effect you *claim* it has on a photon.



I think you're completely missing my point. I'm not suggesting that science is limited to demonstrated cause/effect mechanisms. I'm simply trying to understand how you decided that "space expansion" was possible explanation for photon redshift, let alone "probable".

In terms of DNA, I was not trying to suggest there is any "default" position.



Yet you never demonstrate the existence of space expansion or that it has any effect on photon before you pointed at the sky and claimed "space expansion did it". You didn't meet your own burden of proof to even claim space expansion is "possible", let alone "probable".



So if you and I stumbled across a piece of technology that was far more advanced than anything humans have ever built, would you more apt to believe it's intelligently designed, or it just randomly appeared where we found it?



I think you just demonstrated my point however. We'd both assume that the technology in question was "intelligently designed". We wouldn't *automatically* assume it's "alien" technology, but we'd both be more apt to accept an "alien" explanation over "God did it". Correct?

"Aliens did it" is a "possible" explanation because we know that intelligence is capable of creating technology, and life exists on Earth in many forms. It "could" exist elsewhere in space. Whether is the most "probable" explanation remains to be seen, but we can't rule it out automatically just because we haven't seen any alien lifeforms.



I didn't make such a comparison and we're getting way off track from my original point. I was simply pointing out the some observations may allow us to know that something was a product of 'intelligent design" simply by looking at it and examining it carefully. That's the only point I was trying to make.


There have been *many* published papers attributing slime molds with "intelligence". I didn't make it up.

Looking for true intelligence, study shows that slime molds can learn - ExtremeTech

I'm going to skip the redundant arguments.



Your "space expansion" claim is ultimately a "supernatural" process that has never been documented on Earth. You're clearly playing by two different standards of "evidence" as it relates to photon redshift, and the topic of God. Since there are many *natural* causes of photon redshift, why do we even need a *supernatural* option in the first place?



There's a great irony in that statement as it relates to your *assumed* cause of photon redshift.

"I simply note where you took an "observation" (redshift) and subjectively claimed (apparently on faith) that the "cause" was something unrelated to anything that has ever seen in labs on Earth. It's a "statement of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab)."

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. How do scientists use the redshift to determine it is related to the Big Bang? (or cosmic background radiation). I am asking because you are saying things that indicate you don't know how or why the redshift matters.

"Whether it's "good" (correct) faith, or "bad" (incorrect) belief, remains to be seen."

So it is "good" faith if you agree with it and "bad" faith if you don't?

Like I said, you are undermining your own faith and insulting your own faith by using the word to criticize science you don't like or agree with.

"I'm simply noting where your beliefs are rooted in processes and ideas that you can demonstrate in a lab, and where they deviate from empirical laboratory knowledge."

Once again, laboratory experiments are NOT the only way that scientific knowledge is attained. You are creating a no true scotsman for science by only allowing "lab" science to qualify as science.

"I personally would indeed say that LCDM theory is a form of "bad faith", meaning it's invalid. Faith in the unseen is neither good nor bad by itself IMO, but one's faith can conflict with the empirical evidence, which it does in this case. There's ample evidence of perfectly "natural" explanations for photon redshift."

I personally don't care what the opinion of a non-scientist is with respect to science. Your opinion doesn't carry any weight (especially considering that you don't understand it or the Big Bang).

And the Big Bang Theory IS a NATURAL explanation of the redshift.

"I can cite several *demonstrated* lab processes that *cause* photon redshift. That might allow us to claim some or all of them are "probable" causes of photon redshift, and empirically preferable to "space genies"."

Go ahead, cite the references that provide alternate explanations for the redshift of every object in the universe and disprove the Big Bang Theory. I'll wait.

"No, I'm simply trying to decide how you determined that "space genies" wasn't a "likely" explanation, whereas "space expansion" seems to work for you."

No evidence of "space genies" so it isn't possible for this to be a sufficient explanation. I assume the irony is lost on you that you are asking if magic can be used to explain the redshift?




I can't keep going through all of your terrible arguments and rebutting them one by one. I can only recommend that you educate yourself instead of pretending you know more than you do.

 

[Michael]

I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say.

Really? I've tried to be clear about the nature of the problem. Let me try to articulate the glaring problem one more time.

Both moving objects and inelastic scattering have been empirically demonstrated to have a tangible effect on photon momentum in experiments on Earth. Both options are therefore "possible" explanations for photon redshift in space.

"Space expansion" is an "act of faith" on the part of the believer because nothing like that has ever been seen on Earth. It's therefore not even a *possibility* (by your definition) for "space expansion" to be the cause of the loss of photon momentum in space. You've never even demonstrated that 'space expansion' is in any way connected to "photon redshift". You simply *assumed* it happens, and *assumed* it's the *cause*, *without* bothering to show that it's actually even "possible".

In summary, you've never empirically demonstrated that A) space expansion happens, or B) that it has any tangible effect on photon momentum. You haven't even met your own definition of "possible" yet, let alone demonstrated that it's the most "probable" explanation for the photon redshift phenomenon.

Your entire argument with respect to the actual cause of photon redshift amounts to an affirming the consequent fallacy based upon a *supernatural* (not natural in solar system or galaxy or galaxy cluster) process.

How do scientists use the redshift to determine it is related to the Big Bang? (or cosmic background radiation). I am asking because you are saying things that indicate you don't know how or why the redshift matters.

The problem (for you) is that I know *way too much* about how their supernatural magic works, how their "bait and switch" claims about Doppler shift work, etc. I *know* the difference between the claim "moving objects did it", and "space expansion did it", and I *know* which of those two claims can be demonstrated empirically, and which will forever remain an "act of faith" on your part. That's your problem in a nutshell. You've not even met your own definition of "possible" yet.

"Whether it's "good" (correct) faith, or "bad" (incorrect) belief, remains to be seen."

So it is "good" faith if you agree with it and "bad" faith if you don't?

No. If the 'faith' is later rewarded empirically, it's "good" faith. If the claim however is refuted by empirical evidence, it's "bad faith". For instance, prior to LHC, particle physicists had "faith" in the existence of a Higg's Boson, but they had not yet seen it. LHC experiments demonstrated that their "faith" was not misplaced, and their faith was rewarded with empirical evidence over time. That was an example of "good faith".

On the other had, SUSY theory extensions to particle physics turned out to mostly be *bad* faith, and most of the popular mathematical models were actually falsified by the data. That was an example of "bad" faith.

Like I said, you are undermining your own faith and insulting your own faith by using the word to criticize science you don't like or agree with.

It may seem that way to you, but I don't believe that the term "faith" has either a positive or negative connotation by "default". As it relates to "science", "faith" is typically an important part of the process, typically only so long as it's necessary to verify or falsify the hypothesis. Atheists tend to ascribe a "bad" connotation on the term "faith", particularly when it's related to "science", and hypothetical constructs in general. I get the feeling that you're projecting the good/bad aspect on your own.

Once again, laboratory experiments are NOT the only way that scientific knowledge is attained. You are creating a no true scotsman for science by only allowing "lab" science to qualify as science.

What exactly is your 'beef' with the concept of God again? Can I just use an affirming the consequent fallacy and claim that God exists without showing any evidence that God exists, and then do math with "God"?

I personally don't care what the opinion of a non-scientist is with respect to science. Your opinion doesn't carry any weight (especially considering that you don't understand it or the Big Bang).

Again, the problem for you is that I know way too much about LCDM theory because I've studied the BB theory for over thirty years. I've even watched it morph and change over time and become more reliant upon "supernatural" claims over time.

And the Big Bang Theory IS a NATURAL explanation of the redshift.

That's clearly another statement of faith on your part because you cannot demonstrate space expansion has any effect on a photon here on Earth, so I have no evidence it's "natural".

Go ahead, cite the references that provide alternate explanations for the redshift of every object in the universe and disprove the Big Bang Theory. I'll wait.

Which would you like me to do first?

Let's start by looking at all the *falsifications* of LCDM over the last decade or so:

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

Care to "explain" any of those failures of LCDM theory?

Eric Lerner has also demonstrated that LCDM fails the Tolman brightness test at larger redshifts.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.0275.pdf

FYI, Paul Davies has a nice mathematical model of a "static" universe that explains the very same redshift observations.

http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/thz/documents/davies_2001_cha.pdf

What else would you like to see?

"No, I'm simply trying to decide how you determined that "space genies" wasn't a "likely" explanation, whereas "space expansion" seems to work for you."

No evidence of "space genies" so it isn't possible for this to be a sufficient explanation. I assume the irony is lost on you that you are asking if magic can be used to explain the redshift?

Apparently the irony is lost on you, not me. There's no evidence of "space expansion" either, so it isn't possible for that to be a sufficient explanation either. Get it?

I can't keep going through all of your terrible arguments and rebutting them one by one. I can only recommend that you educate yourself instead of pretending you know more than you do.

You can't even offer a valid rebuttal for my first objection. You never showed that space genies or space expansion exists in nature, therefore neither option is a "possibility" to explain redshift by your own definition.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That is the point of this post. To clarify how these terms should be used in the context of their definitions.

OK.

I say something is possible if it is not contrary to natural laws (e.g. not impossible). It only requires that is should be consistent with natural laws. So I think unicorns are possible because there is no good reason why they should not be able to evolve on some Earth-like planet (as it happens, we know of real mammals that have unicorn-like bodies (e.g. horses, zebra), and real mammals that have central horns (rhino, narwhal), so I'd suggest there is also good evidence to suppose they are possible).

I say something is plausible when it appears both possible, reasonable, and credible.

I say something is probable when I think it is plausible, and more likely to be the case than not.

Now what?

 

[Michael]

OK.

I say something is possible if it is not contrary to natural laws (e.g. not impossible). It only requires that is should be consistent with natural laws.

Even the belief about an idea being "consistent with natural laws" becomes dicey and debatable the moment we start discussing theoretical branches of physics. Mathematically speaking, M-theory is consistent with known "natural" laws, but it requires "faith" in multiple additional dimensions of spacetime. Is that really "consistent with natural laws"?

Pretty much anytime we start to deviate from empirical physics, we're talking about "extending" nature in some way, adding a new form of energy, matter, particle/field, spacetime dimension, etc. It's not exactly "natural" anymore, it's more akin to "supernatural" concept at that point, particularly if it's not "testable" in controlled experimentation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even the belief about an idea being "consistent with natural laws" becomes dicey and debatable the moment we start discussing theoretical branches of physics. Mathematically speaking, M-theory is consistent with known "natural" laws, but it requires "faith" in multiple additional dimensions of spacetime. Is that really "consistent with natural laws"?

Pretty much anytime we start to deviate from empirical physics, we're talking about "extending" nature in some way, adding a new form of energy, matter, particle/field, spacetime dimension, etc. It's not exactly "natural" anymore, it's more akin to "supernatural" concept at that point, particularly if it's not "testable" in controlled experimentation.

It's true that there are contexts at the boundaries of knowledge where the laws of nature are uncertain or unknown - because the laws of nature are based on our observations of it and there are things we can't observe or haven't yet observed. In these situations, there is little choice but to consider the predictions, extrapolations, and credible extensions of the principles underlying the most successful models we have (typically mathematical in physics) - and to admit that we don't know, but we can qualify the possibility with the relevant assumptions we find necessary. Until we can test their predictions, they will remain hypotheses.

The supernatural is something else, something that is not possible within the natural laws we know, or plausible extensions of them.

 

[TBDude65]

OK.

I say something is possible if it is not contrary to natural laws (e.g. not impossible). It only requires that is should be consistent with natural laws. So I think unicorns are possible because there is no good reason why they should not be able to evolve on some Earth-like planet (as it happens, we know of real mammals that have unicorn-like bodies (e.g. horses, zebra), and real mammals that have central horns (rhino, narwhal), so I'd suggest there is also good evidence to suppose they are possible).

I say something is plausible when it appears both possible, reasonable, and credible.

I say something is probable when I think it is plausible, and more likely to be the case than not.

Now what?

You would consider the magical properties attributed to unicorns to be possible?

(that is why I picked unicorns but also picked bigfoot as a comparison)

 

[Chriliman]

I agree with your definition of possible in that something is only possible if there's evidence that supports the possibility. In the case of intention - we have evidence of intentional things (cars, ant hills, nests) therefore it's possible that every material thing we observe is intentional, regardless if the intender is known to exist or not.

You may disagree and say something along the lines of "if the intender is not known to exist then we can't say intention is possible". However, someone can logically presume a thing is possibly intentional, even if they don't know who or what intended the thing.

Edit: Maybe design isn't the best word to use here. Lets try 'intentional'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You would consider the magical properties attributed to unicorns to be possible?

No - not if it's 'real Magic' (as below). Unicorns are only attributed magical powers in some interpretations (the same applies to some real animals).

"Real Magic isn't real, and the magic that is real isn't really Magic" - James Randi​

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree with your definition of possible in that something is only possible if there's evidence that supports the possibility. In the case of design - we have evidence of designed things (cars, ant hills, nests) therefore it's possible that every material thing we observe is designed, regardless if the designer is known to exist or not.

You may disagree and say something along the lines of "if the designer is not known to exist then we can't say design is possible". However, someone can logically presume a thing is possibly designed, even if they don't know who or what designed the thing.

What are the criteria for attributing design?

 

[Chriliman]

What are the criteria for attributing design?

It can be subjective depending on what's being observed, but mainly that whatever is being observed performs some kind of function. Fore example: the function of a painting is to convey meaning. Or the function of an ant hill is to support the ants in what they do. We see function in all matter, which is why it's logical to presume possible intent/design.

 

[Loudmouth]

fair enough. Yes, some philosophical arguments are based upon initial assumptions, but initial assumptions aren't actually true by default even if they are assumed to be for the sake of a specific argument.

Axiom:
1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2. a universally accepted principle or rule.
3. Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
the definition of axiom

The goal is to start with things that we agree are true (i.e. truisms). From those accepted truths, we work towards a logical conclusion. If we can't agree on what is true, then we can't move towards a conclusion.

In other words, an argument boils down to "If these things are true, then this other thing must also be true". When we say that something is possible/plausible, what we are saying is that it belongs in the "true" pile.

Which is ultimately what I am challenging, the way the word "possible" is used with respect to god where it is assumed that a god is possible without providing any evidential reason why that must be a true assumption.

It is true that God could exist. There is no evidence against it.

The problem we soon run into is that if we start with an omnipotent and omniscient deity who lives outside of time and space, then any conclusion can be true. Could the universe have been created 2 minutes ago, complete with false memories and a false history? It's possible if we accept that an omniscient and omnipotent deity could exist.

However, what is possible is not as intriguing as what is real. Out of nearly an infinite number of possibilities, only one of those possibilities is true. If people want to pick at belly button lint and dream up of possibilities, all the more power to them. I, for one, am more interested in what is real.

 

[Loudmouth]

It can be subjective depending on what's being observed, but mainly that whatever is being observed performs some kind of function.

Clouds serve the function of moving water from the atmosphere to the ground.

Are clouds designed?

 

[Speedwell]

It can be subjective depending on what's being observed, but mainly that whatever is being observed performs some kind of function. Fore example: the function of a painting is to convey meaning. Or the function of an ant hill is to support the ants in what they do. We see function in all matter, which is why it's logical to presume possible intent/design.

By that standard it is possible to conclude that everything is designed. However ID theory asserts that only some things are designed, so the argument from functionality fails.

 

[Michael]

The supernatural is something else, something that is not possible within the natural laws we know, or plausible extensions of them.

If it's not "possible" based on empirical cause/effect justification, who gets to decide if it's a "plausible" extension to the "natural laws"?

For instance, monopoles are not known to exist in nature, and Maxwell's equations work a specific way at the moment based on the notion that a magnetic field has no source, and no sink unlike electric fields. It's "possible" to extend Maxwell's equations to include the concept of a magnetic monopole, but is that really a "plausible" extension to the laws of nature? Ditto for the whole M-theory concept. How "plausible" is it really?

 

[Michael]

FYI the whole "plausible" issue is really questionable when there are already *known* ways to achieve something, and the alternative being presented has never been demonstrated. Nowhere is that more true on the issue of photon redshift. Several *known* causes of photon redshift exist, and "space expansion" has never been observed in "nature" here on Earth, in our solar system, in our galaxy, or in our galaxy cluster. Some astronomers are convinced however that at some magic place, presumably between galaxy clusters, "space" starts doing *unnatural* 'expansion' tricks that happen nowhere else in the known universe.

 

[Michael]

FYI, I don't think the definition of "possible" in the OP is actually tenable.

By that definition, the concept of "space expansion" isn't even possible, let alone plausible or probable.

I'd personally say that the concept of space expansion is "possible" even without any cause/effect laboratory justification, but it's certainly not "plausible". The universe is filled with mass/energy, it's not really a "vacuum". I see no evidence that anywhere in spacetime is really all that much "less dense" than anywhere else. It's all filled with plasma, dust, neutrinos and photons galore.

There are *demonstrated* methods to achieve photon redshift that are certainly more "plausible" and more "probable" too since it happens in plasma in the lab consistently, and it would be virtually impossible for it to *not happen* in spacetime.

I'd say "space expansion" passes the "possible" test, but fails both the plausible and probable tests.

By the restricted definition of the OP however, space expansion isn't even "possible".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It can be subjective depending on what's being observed, but mainly that whatever is being observed performs some kind of function.

What are the criteria for functionality? For example, a tree performs the function of providing a roost for birds - is a tree designed? A high ridge or cliff functions as source of updrafts for soaring birds - is a high ridge or cliff designed? Gravity serves the function of holding stuff onto the Earth - is gravity designed?

We see function in all matter, which is why it's logical to presume possible intent/design.

Are you sure? because that seems to implicitly suggest that if we can see a function for something it must have been designed for that function, and we know that's not always true (as Duchamp demonstrated with 'Fountain').