Back to Home

Astronomy Discussion Forums

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Here's A Definition Of 'possible'

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Harvey on October 21, 2002 18:48:54 UTC

Dick,

I got this map off Yahoo, so it must be correct (smile).

*** I will proceed with any definition of "possible" you wish to provide; so long as that definition is at least reasonably consistent with common usage.***

Okay, let me propose this definition of possible (which is the one that you are using in your reply):

Possible: The current situation is such that some unknown case might occur in the future [or might currently be (or have been) the case] even if we do not know it or know how that case can occur [or currently be (or have been) the case]. Likewise, the current situation is such that some unknown case might not occur in the future [or might not currently be (or have been) the case]. What determines the case is based on unknown, or unpredictable, or undecidable factors to those faced with answering whether the case in question is possible.

With this definition, I can show you what's wrong with your (6) and (7).

1. It [might or might not be the case] that some specific thing (or perhaps several specific things) may exist.

2. It [might or might not be the case] that some of those things which exist have no direct consequences in the physical universe available to my studies.

3. Some of those things described as having no direct consequences in the physical universe available to my studies may have consequences in the future.

4. At all times, from the ancient past to the far flung future, any rational person's idea of the universe will be based on things they think exist.

5. Those "things" which are not part of "Ultimate Reality" [might or might not] be absolutely anything.

6. It [might or might not be the case] to label all of these "things" with exactly the same symbols commonly used to label numbers.

**Notice why (6) is confusing. I interpret (6) to mean that we might be able to label all of the 'things' of Ultimate Reality, but it might also be the case that it cannot be done. I'm thinking that you will reject this interpretation of (6), but it is the meaning of (6) with the definition of 'possible' that I gave (and you requested) which changes the meaning of (6). Had 'possible' been defined differently, then (6) would have an entirely different meaning.

7. It [might or might not be the case] to refer to that portion of true "Ultimate Reality" on which any individuals beliefs are based via a set of unknown numbers.

**I'm sure you are seeing fireworks go off on what happens to (7) with the definition of 'possible' that I gave you. Your (7) says, in effect, that we might be able to refer to true portions of 'Ultimate Reality', but then again, we might not be able to so.

Hence, your (7) is a misinterpretation of the word 'possible' and therefore should be rejected since we it might not be the case that to refer to a portion of true "Ultimate Reality". Since we don't know, we cannot assume that labelling Ultimate Reality (6) is valid, nor can we assume that we can refer to a portion of true "Ultimate Reality". We shouldn't make the assumption since we don't know.

Warm regards, Harv

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins