Impossibillity?

Pages: 1234
The only thing impossible
is impossibility.

Agreed?
Last edited on
Impossibility is hardly a thing...

There is plenty of impossible things in mathematics. Possibly the most real part of it, computation theory, gives us a basic truth - it is impossible to solve the halting problem.

I have to wonder, where is this thread coming from?
Last edited on
closed account (zb0S216C)
I don't agree:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100409194328AApbpsB

Wazzak
I tried to argue something like this...whats the opposite of logic? and how does it work??
<thread derailment commencing>


devonrevenge wrote:
whats the opposite of logic? and how does it work??


Religion. And people just believe in it without thinking because it feels good.


ZING!

Religion. And people just believe in it without thinking because it feels good.


ahahaha
XD

And so it begins!

Thankfully, I'd hope most programmers have a logical mindset, so I'm willing to bet the majority would be an atheist response.

As a physics and cosmology student, it's worth bringing up the idea of a multiverse (which essentially says that there are more many more universes than just our own), which has gained a good deal of traction in the physics community. Little is known about what those other universes would be like, but among other things many physical constants would likely be completely different, and logic from our universe could easily break down making what we consider impossible to be possible.

In another universe it's very possible that I could pick up one rock with my right hand, pick up one rock with my left hand, and then suddenly be holding in total three rocks. It wouldn't be any more outlandish to say that the halting problem could have a general solution in some other universe, and that what we believe to be impossible could be very possible.
Last edited on
@Disch
Logic is the method of deriving supposedly true statements from supposedly true assumptions. It is not about being right, it is about being consistent. The method by which you decide religion to be wrong is not logic, it is a rational heuristic. All questions in life, including that of religion, are entirely outside the scope of logic. All you have is that one heuristic, probably born in a critter in the bottom of the ocean some billions of years ago to feed itself more efficiently. This mechanism is incapable of truth. But you state things as true, because it feels good.

I understand why you keep attacking religion. I hear you have it pretty bad in US. But it's not actually religion that you have problems with. It's just plain ignorance. So I'd appreciate it if you named it as such.
Last edited on
I wasn't being [completely] serious. I thought it was just a funny zinger.
@ascii
Mathematics is entirely separate from the physical world. The fact that if you take one rock, another rock and have two rocks is reflected by 1+1=2, but does not cause it. If instead you then had three rocks, the regular + would still exist, though we probably wouldn't be talking about it. There is actually no one true logic. All logics exist in all universes.
I heard that the big bang could be a higher energy universe leaking into out lower energy one, Science sounds farfetched and spiritual even when its being real
Mathematics is entirely separate from the physical world. The fact that if you take one rock, another rock and have two rocks is reflected by 1+1=2, but does not cause it. If instead you then had three rocks, the regular + would still exist, though we probably wouldn't be talking about it.


Fair point.

All I was trying to say anyhow is that the mathematical rules and laws that our universe abides by could be so radically different from that of another universe that deeming anything as impossible is ridiculous.
hellfire1 wrote:
Thankfully, I'd hope most programmers have a logical mindset, so I'm willing to bet the majority would be an atheist response.

Atheism (the belief that God doesn't exist) is as irrational as believing that God does exist.

I consider myself to be agnostic because I can't see how it can be proved either way. I have accepted that I posses neither the wisdom or intelligence to find the correct answer myself.
The only thing impossible
 is impossibility.
 
Agreed? 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FwcOP3dI3o

If anyone here has played this level I feel your pain. In all seriousness if the premise of the multiverse point holds true, then nothing is concrete. Life as we know governed by the "laws" we live by is basically religion in the sense that it is a crutch used as a placeholder until more evidence has been found.
Making a machine that will always show the future correctly is impossible, because seeing the future will change the future.

Proof:

For. eg. let us assume (assumption 1) that seeing the future is always possible

Now if I decide that if the future-showing-machine shows that I died while sitting in a car, I will never sit in a car and if it shows I died in a different way, I will sit in a car and kill myself.

Now this decision will never let 'assumption 1' be true. Hence, seeing the future is not always possible.
Last edited on
But do you believe in parallel universes, or a single universe where time can be changed? If the latter, then your idea about seeing the future would create a paradox...
fun2code wrote:
Atheism (the belief that

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.
Unlike with stamps, not believing in god and believing that there is no god are different things.
Atheism is just as silly as any other religion, the blind belief that something is exactly the way you think it is. Agnostics know better than that.
Systems tend to break down when they reference themselves:
"This sentence is false".

For some good reads check out Douglas Hofstadter, particularly "Godel, Escher, and Bach", and "I am a Strange Loop:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,_Escher,_Bach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
Pages: 1234