Philosophy: Is it possible to imagine the impossible?

[freesoulhope]

They clued in when the Euros disembarked into small boats because their experience was of men in small fishing boats. After a period of scurvy-ridden white men landing on the beaches, the First Nations suddenly “saw” big ships.

They just never thought that such a thing existed in the real world; that does not mean to say that they could not imagine what a big boat would look like. Sorry.

Peace

 

[tdgesq]

not only is it possible to imagine a logically impossible state of affairs, it is possible to believe in a logically impossible proposition.

I think the distinction that Ani was asking for needs to be made here. In my view, imagination requires a mental image of some type. That is not the case when mathematicians are discussing set theory. The imagination ultimately hinders understanding of abstract concepts. A mistaken belief about an abstract concept is even more remote from the imagination.

what can’t be done is to imagine or believe in something you know is logically impossible.

You are conflating the concept of imagination with that of belief.

. . .until russell made this observation to frege (burali-forti and cantor himself made an earlier and similar observation about naive set-theory concerning sets of ordinals), frege believed his theory to be true; following the revelation of the paradox, however, it became clear that the theory, as stated by frege, was in fact logically impossible, despite his belief in its truth.

In any case, I’m not getting your point. All that belief in a logically impossible proposition demonstrates to me is that the subject never had a correct understanding of the proposition.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

Yes, but you can imagine looking through somebody. You can’t imagine what a new colour would look like.

My point was that xrays were a new – or more accurately, a hitherto unknown – ‘colour.’

freesoulhope:

The physical laws of reality can only allow you to actualise within your mind, what reality is made of.

How does that limit my imagination?

freesoulhope:

It was possible to imagine atoms because atoms in some form or another exist, even if it only exists as an distorted version of something that is real and atualised in the real world.

But for billions of people they did not and do not exist.

freesoulhope:

I can imagine flying, even though i cannot, simply because there are things that do fly, and reality at some level allows it to be at least a potential possiblity, even if its highly improbable.

Do you belong to a set of creatures, part of which can fly? Yes.

freesoulhope:

A unicorn does not exist, but we can imagine one by recreating what already exists in the material world.

OK.

freesoulhope:

We cut up things up in are minds that exist in the real world, and reshape them into things that we like.

Ah! We create. So imagination has a creative component not just a descriptive component. We are not just talking about what’s there, but about what could be there.

freesoulhope:

I may be wrong, but theres my 2 pence for what its worth.

Kewl.

 

[Mirdath]

Answer me this, can you imagine being burned by the sun and not being burned by the sun in the same way while flying through it?

What you describe is a paradox, not an impossibility.

It’s certainly possible to imagine that which could never happen – I can imagine my skin turning green, for example, or imagine a crow suddenly growing to human size and speaking. It’s a common element, even the defining element, of fantasy. Paradox is a different beast, and one on which the mind breaks.

Ani Ibi: 1895.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

They just never thought that such a thing existed in the real world; that does not mean to say that they could not imagine what a big boat would look like. Sorry.Peace

So are you saying:

They had small boats.
They had big trees in the forest, but didn’t use those big trees to make their small boats.
They could imagine what kind of monster boat they could make with the big trees.
There were so many Euros landing on the beach that they imagined they might have built big boats to come across the big water.
Opening the eyes of imagination opened the eyes of what was there.

?

 

[freesoulhope]

My point was that xrays were a new – or more accurately, a hitherto unknown – ‘colour.’

It is not the same as an unknown colour. It was an unknown that such a thing was possible, but we can imagine even before such was invented, looking through somebody’s body.

Yet i do agree, that there are things that we did not know about such as what the inside of a human body looked like at one time.

I do not believe however, that there is any such thing as a colour that does not exist, or we have not seen.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

tdgesq:

I think the distinction that Ani was asking for needs to be made here. In my view, imagination requires a mental image of some type. That is not the case when mathematicians are discussing set theory.

How is a mental image not necessary to discussing and achieving a common understanding of set theory? Every prof I ever had said to draw diagrams and show our work.

tdgesq:

The imagination ultimately hinders understanding of abstract concepts.

Um… we are way way post-Picasso now.

tdgesq:

A mistaken belief about an abstract concept is even more remote from the imagination.

Can you flesh this out a bit more, because I am not understanding you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

It is not the same as an unknown colour.

Yes. Xrays are on the same spectrum as visible light. Xrays are, if you will, a kind of light we cannot see with the naked eye.

freesoulhope:

I do not believe however, that there is any such thing as a colour that does not exist, or we have not seen.

Maybe not anymore for us. But there was and still is for other people a colour which cannot be seen.

By the way, what colour is red with all the lights off?

 

[freesoulhope]

So are you saying:

They had small boats.
They had big trees in the forest, but didn’t use those big trees to make their small boats.
They could imagine what kind of monster boat they could make with the big trees.
There were so many Euros landing on the beach that they imagined they might have built big boats to come across the big water.
Opening the eyes of imagination opened the eyes of what was there.

?

If there is no sea, you cannot imagine a boat. In fact if there is nothing, the human mind cannot imagine anything; it is true that we need a reality such as ours to stimulate imagination/ reflection on the real world; such a thing can helps stimulate “self”.

You have a point that there are things that we can’t imagine but might just as well exist. But you cant imagine the imposible because such a thing does not exist, and neither does any colour that is not a product of another colour. All the colours are actually products of of another colour. The only way there can be a new colour, as if we can create one by mixing the already existing colours. If you cannot do that, then how can one imagine what such a colour would look like?

Its like emotions. I think imposible that there is such a think as an emotion that we have not conceived of or imagine, because emotions have a spectrum, like colours have spectrums, and there is nothing out side of those spectrums.

 

[freesoulhope]

Yes. Xrays are on the same spectrum as visible light. Xrays are, if you will, a kind of light we cannot see with the naked eye.

Maybe not anymore for us. But there was and still is for other people a colour which cannot be seen.

By the way, what colour is red with all the lights off?

I wouldn’t know, since colour is a product of light.

 

[clmowry]

I don’t get it.
How can it be impossible to properly understand / imagine a common mathematical concept?

incidently, it is not possible to properly understand/imagine the INFINITE

 

[Ani_Ibi]

freesoulhope:

All the colours are actually products of of another colour. The only way there can be a new colour, as if we can create one by mixing the already existing colours.

You are talking about pigments not colours. We’re going to use the term ‘hues’ now and not ‘colours.’

Pigments absorb certain wavelengths of light (hues) and reflect other wavelengths of light (hues).

Each hue, on the other hand, has its own wavelength of light. No mixing.

freesoulhope:

If you cannot do that, then how can one imagine what such a colour would look like?

It is true that one’s ability to distinguish between hues is greatly enhanced by mixing pigments.

freesoulhope:

Its like emotions. I think imposible that there is such a think as an emotion that we have not conceived of or imagine, because emotions have a spectrum, like colours have spectrums, and there is nothing out side of those spectrums.

Gosh, that’s scary. I wouldn’t want to think of an emotion for which I had no word. I wonder how it must be for babies experiencing their first emotion. Some survivors of PTSD cannot connect words to the emotions they are experiencing or trying not to experience.

 

[promethius95945]

Not only is an appeal to authority an unconvincing argument, it is also an informal fallacy. And if you are going to appeal to an authority, how about next time pick a theoretical physicist like Anthony Rizzi who writes books about these things.

But I’m not coming from Anthony Rizzi’s perspective, nor do I have a doctorate. I wasn’t dropping an appeal to authority as an argument at all, however. I was merely seeking to help you understand that I’m discussing this as a scientific application with a formal education background in physics (since many claim to have a background in physics while lacking any formal education in the subject… and wikipedia hardly counts as physics background).

I never argued that we do have a perfect understanding of infinity. I don’t know where you’re getting this. My only point was that we can and do have a concept of infinity even though we can’t imagine infinity.

You originally said, and I quote, “True, but it is possible to understand the concept of infinity.” Having a concept of and having an understanding of are two entirely different animals. The point is that it IS possible to have an abstract concept of infinite (which is what I stated) but to understand it is not possible. Take Philosophy of Religion and pay attention to the portion on defining God by negatives and you’ll get where I’m going (philosophically) with this scientific idea.

If infinity constitutes something that is the antithesis of physics, then why do theoretical physicists use it not infrequently in mathematical equations? For crying out loud, mathematicians use the concept of infinity all the time. Think about asymptotes. I don’t know what you mean by “really” understand it, but if you mean that we don’t know everything there is to know about infinity, then I’m not arguing with you.

Infinite does NOT constitute an anti-thesis of physical law. You misread. Something which constitutes the antithesis of physical law is easily understood. Instead, infinite is a non-object for a finite and physically constrained universe. As has already been said, the human mind is limited by its perception of space and time and as such has no real understanding of infinite, even when used in something as simple as mathematical equations.

If you’d like a practical definition, by all means, define infinite for us all.

 

[freesoulhope]

Gosh, that’s scary. I wouldn’t want to think of an emotion for which I had no word. I wonder how it must be for babies experiencing their first emotion. Some survivors of PTSD cannot connect words to the emotions they are experiencing or trying not to experience.

Okay okay… you got me. Im waving the white flag now.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If you’d like a practical definition, by all means, define infinite for us all.

Not going there. But just wanted to say I have no trouble visualizing Hawking’s description of a no-boundary universe. Or Reynolds description of two 4-dimensional branes colliding in 5-dimensional space.

The thing is that I am begging the OP question. Obviously 4-D and 5-D space are possible. But they weren’t a century ago. Is ‘the impossible’ not bound by time and culture? What is ‘the impossible’ now?

 

[john_doran]

I think the distinction that Ani was asking for needs to be made here. In my view, imagination requires a mental image of some type. That is not the case when mathematicians are discussing set theory. The imagination ultimately hinders understanding of abstract concepts.

i agree.
tgdesq:

You are conflating the concept of imagination with that of belief.

??

how can that be when i explicitly distinguished the two?
tgdesq:

In any case, I’m not getting your point. All that belief in a logically impossible proposition demonstrates to me is that the subject never had a correct understanding of the proposition.

well, that was my point…

Ani’s original question was whether it was possible to imagine something that was logically impossible; intentionally elliding “imagining” and “conceiving”, i said, yes, it is possible; then i one-upped myself and said that it was also possible to believe a proposition that was logically impossible.

so, original question answered.

then i made the revision you yourself are reiterating here: it’s only possible to do either of these things if one is unaware of the logical impossibility of the belief/concept/imagined thing.

i’m not sure what’s not clear about that.

 

[tdgesq]

How is a mental image not necessary to discussing and achieving a common understanding of set theory? Every prof I ever had said to draw diagrams and show our work.

I said ultimately it hinders it, I didn’t say that mental imagery can’t initially be helpful in understanding an abstract concept. I mean, initially everything we know comes to us through the senses. We can later reflect on it, looking at mental images in our head (so to speak). It is from all of this information that the intellect can abstract general concepts. Once we get to this point though, relying on imagination hinders our ability to understand these abstract concepts.

Take the example of infinity. You cannot have an image of an infinite set of things in your head. Just like you can’t have an image of a negative set of objects in your head. Try it and you will see that what I am saying is true. Yet we can conceive of infinity and negative numbers apart from any mental image of them.

A mistaken belief concerning an abstract concept (especially in terms of a logical proposition) has very little to do with the imagination. It does not demonstrate that it is possible to imagine a logical impossibility.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

tdgesq:

Yet we can conceive of infinity and negative numbers apart from any mental image of them.

You are making a distinction between ‘mental image’ and ‘conceiving.’

Can you flesh that distinction out please so that I can understand you?

tdgesq:

A mistaken belief concerning an abstract concept (especially in terms of a logical proposition) has very little to do with the imagination.

I think many of us are talking about a range of impossibilities, not just one impossibility. Can you describe ‘a mistaken belief concerning an abstract concept’ and ‘imagination’ please? Thank you.

tdgesq:

It does not demonstrate that it is possible to imagine a logical impossibility.

You make the distinction ‘logical’ impossibility. Can you take us down that road please? Thank you.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

john doran:

Ani’s original question was whether it was possible to imagine something that was logically impossible;

Yikes! My original question was :newidea:

 

[tdgesq]

But I’m not coming from Anthony Rizzi’s perspective, nor do I have a doctorate. I wasn’t dropping an appeal to authority as an argument at all, however. I was merely seeking to help you understand that I’m discussing this as a scientific application with a formal education background in physics (since many claim to have a background in physics while lacking any formal education in the subject… and wikipedia hardly counts as physics background).

No. Please stop. No one in this thread except you is dropping their university degree. I don’t care whether someone is putting in their two cents solely from having read Wikipedia or whatever else. They will be met on their arguments. That’s it. If you degree drop again, you will be corrected again.

You originally said, and I quote, “True, but it is possible to understand the concept of infinity.” Having a concept of and having an understanding of are two entirely different animals.

This is nonsense. If “understanding” and “concept” are mutually exclusive, then it is not possible to understand a concept. Better throw out physics as a discipline then. Somehow the applied sciences manage to use these concepts that can’t be understood day in and day out to accurately predict how things act in reality.

The point is that it IS possible to have an abstract concept of infinite (which is what I stated) but to understand it is not possible. Take Philosophy of Religion and pay attention to the portion on defining God by negatives and you’ll get where I’m going (philosophically) with this scientific idea.

Not even material objects that actually exist which we apprehend can be completely understood. There are different degrees of knowledge and understanding. To state that it is impossible to understand abstract concepts in the way you are here is to destroy knowledge.

Infinite does NOT constitute an anti-thesis of physical law. You misread. Something which constitutes the antithesis of physical law is easily understood. Instead, infinite is a non-object for a finite and physically constrained universe. As has already been said, the human mind is limited by its perception of space and time and as such has no real understanding of infinite, even when used in something as simple as mathematical equations.

I do not believe that an actual infinite can exist in reality. I do believe the concept of it can exist in the mind and that this constitutes knowledge. Not something apart from knowledge. It is why those simple mathematical equations to which you refer work.

If you’d like a practical definition, by all means, define infinite for us all.

As opposed to what other definition? You certainly haven’t given one. Here’s one: The limit that a function f is said to approach at x = a when f(x) is larger than any preassigned number for all x sufficiently near a. Another is unbounded quantity.