Impossibles and Improbables

'When you eliminate the impossibles, whatever remains, howsoever improbable it may be, must be the truth'
(Sherlock Holmes, quoting from memory)

The problem with many people is, thanks to superstitions, to religious beliefs and to plain ignorance, that they fail to differentiate between the impossibles and the improbables. In fact, mysticism takes out all the impossibles, leaving only probables and improbables.

Comments?

coaltontrail

Post 1

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 1:16pm

Not that I disagree, but how would you identify impossibles? Sometimes it's easy, as when identifying logical contradictions (e.g., it's impossible for two ones to equal five). But sometimes it's not so easy, as when identifying some factual contradictions (e.g., it's impossible for cows to speak English). Most controversial "possibilities" are factual, not logical.

Jordan

Post 2

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 2:24pm

Jordan,

Very interesting point. But then, is it not possible to reduce every 'factual contradiction' to a logical one? Because a fact is some form of measured data. To measure, you need definitions which take you back to logic.

I am just thinking aloud.

coaltontrail

Post 3

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 12:19pm

The fundamental impossibility is non-identity, that which is asserted by contradictions (e.g., "A is not A".) Mysticism is the embracing of contradiction, of non-identity. The result of mysticism is nihilism, complete nihilism. Even likelihood falls when the axiom is not acknowledged as immutable. The mystic solution to this nihilism is the hoax they call faith. Mysticism in an epistemological context, is the claim of knowledge not grounded on the axiom.

Post 4

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 4:45pm

Hi Coalton,

But then, is it not possible to reduce every 'factual contradiction' to a logical one? Because a fact is some form of measured data. To measure, you need definitions which take you back to logic.

I don't understand. I don't know why we'd need definitions in order to measure. Seems backwards. I think we might need measures in order to define. Even so, I wouldn't know how to reduce fact to logic. For example "Ice floats in water" is fact, but how is that reducible to logic? Or if you prefer, "cows can speak English" is an allegedly contradictory fact, but how is that reducible to logical contradiction?

I think Dunkley is suggesting that non-identities indicate impossibilities. Again, it's not always easy to identify when a fact is in contradiction to something's identity, so it's not always easy to determine whether something is impossible or improbable. Is it impossible to have a five-legged dog, a non-human animal that reasons, a person who can jump over 30 ft (given Earth's gravity), to stop aging, to live forever? Recall that it used to be considered impossible to plot longitude, to break the sound barrier, to travel plot a shorter course from Britian to India.

Jordan

Post 5

Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - 9:29pm

Jordan wrote: "I don't understand. I don't know why we'd need definitions in order to measure. Seems backwards. I think we might need measures in order to define."

Let's see where it leads. To measure something means that something has been identified and appropriate process and a 'unit' have been defined. Take the measurement of distance as an example.

" Even so, I wouldn't know how to reduce fact to logic. For example "Ice floats in water" is fact, but how is that reducible to logic? Or if you prefer, "cows can speak English" is an allegedly contradictory fact, but how is that reducible to logical contradiction?"

In the example "Ice floats in water", don't you have to define what it means to float, for instance? It may be an obvious fact, but the process is still the same. Is it not?

Also, when I said 'reducible to logic' I was only suggesting that it may be theoretically possible to do so, but not necessarily in practice (hence the difficulty in differentiating the impossibles and improbables?)

Am I making any sense?

coaltontrail

Post 6

Thursday, October 7, 2004 - 7:20am