Philosophy: Is it possible to imagine the impossible?

[freesoulhope]

I feel a good way to approach the impossible is by defining what the impossible is not; a sort of ‘negative method’ which helps unveil the impossible by removing the possible.

Its is imposible to imagine the imposible, simply because the imposible does not have any roots in existence; it is not logical that you can imagine something imposible, because anything you do imagine, even if its not real or does not exist, has roots in the real world around us. To imagine something that has no roots in or is not relflective of the world around us, is to think of something like “what does the soul look like”; it is imposible to imagine what the soul looks like, simply because it has no image except for its material counterpart or what we give it in terms of launguage. However, it is posible to imagine that something is imposible to imagine; but we cannot imagine that which is imposible, otherwise we would have imagined it (or will eventually). We have a finite Imagination, and can only imagine a set number of things, just like there are a set number of melodeys or concepts for songs that one can invent; it is imposible to imagine past that set number of inventive combinations.

What do think?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Its is imposible to imagine the imposible, simply because the imposible does not have any roots in existence;

While it is true that the tree is known by its fruit, is it not possible to imagine the fruit of the tree by knowing its roots?

 

[freesoulhope]

While it is true that the tree is known by its fruit, is it not possible to imagine the fruit of the tree by knowing its roots?

Only if it has roots in existents; something reflective or provocative of it.

 

[cor]

promethius, there’s what’s known as “philosophical infinite” and “mathematical infinite.” A philosophical infinite is defined differently than a mathematical infinite. As you may know, there are actually an infinite number of differently-sized mathematical infinites (for example the set of reals has a cardinality greater than the set of integers). A set is considered “infinite” in mathematics when it has a cardinality equal to or greater than the set of natural numbers – but no set in the universe of set theory is actually philosophically infinite.

A philosophical infinite is absolutely unbounded. The set of natural numbers is not so (for example, its cardinality is within the bounds of the cardinality of the reals).

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).

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.

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.

 

[Greg27]

Its is imposible to imagine the imposible, simply because the imposible does not have any roots in existence; it is not logical that you can imagine something imposible, because anything you do imagine, even if its not real or does not exist, has roots in the real world around us. To imagine something that has no roots in or is not relflective of the world around us, is to think of something like “what does the soul look like”; it is imposible to imagine what the soul looks like, simply because it has no image except for its material counterpart or what we give it in terms of launguage. However, it is posible to imagine that something is imposible to imagine; but we cannot imagine that which is imposible, otherwise we would have imagined it (or will eventually). We have a finite Imagination, and can only imagine a set number of things, just like there are a set number of melodeys or concepts for songs that one can invent; it is imposible to imagine past that set number of inventive combinations.

What do think?

I did point out we can approach the impossible/ineffable/unknowable, by trying to remove from it what it is not, but that doesn’t mean we then get a clear comprehension of the impossible.

Perhaps it is also useful to separate the impossible from the ineffable or unknowable. Some things which are impossible (such as 2 + 2 = 5) are easily comprehensible because they violate elementary laws of logic. Another simple ‘impossible’ is for a man to be married and a bachelor at the same time. These are perfectly comprehensible. But if we are talking about something which is incomprehensible (for example something which is actually infinite) and impossible (such as counting individually all the parts of an infinite whole in a finite time) then it becomes helpful to start ‘comprehending’ it by negating certain things it cannot be. This approach was coined by Nicholas of Cusa as ‘learned ignorance’, that is, as we approach a truth or object which is never fully comprehensible to the human mind, we can grasp certain aspects or features or properties about that object but the human mind will never fully comprehend it in its entirety. Kant was to apply a similar notion in a way to ‘things in themselves’ such as the soul, God, or free will.

When it comes to the unconditioned (whatever it may be) I think this approach of ‘learned ignorance’ is quite useful, whether the object is in mathematics, philosophy, science, theology or mysticism, provided we don’t use it to screen off rational enquiry where it can be legitimately applied.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

… Perhaps it is also useful to separate the impossible from the ineffable or unknowable.

:yup:

Greg27:

Some things which are impossible (such as 2 + 2 = 5) are easily comprehensible because they violate elementary laws of logic. Another simple ‘impossible’ is for a man to be married and a bachelor at the same time. These are perfectly comprehensible.

Yes.

Greg27:

But if we are talking about something which is incomprehensible (for example something which is actually infinite) and impossible (such as counting individually all the parts of an infinite whole in a finite time) then it becomes helpful to start ‘comprehending’ it by negating certain things it cannot be.

Yes.

Greg27:

This approach was coined by Nicholas of Cusa as ‘learned ignorance’, that is, as we approach a truth or object which is never fully comprehensible to the human mind, we can grasp certain aspects or features or properties about that object but the human mind will never fully comprehend it in its entirety.

Thanks for this.

Greg27:

Kant was to apply a similar notion in a way to ‘things in themselves’ such as the soul, God, or free will.

Thanks for this.

Greg27:

When it comes to the unconditioned (whatever it may be) I think this approach of ‘learned ignorance’ is quite useful, whether the object is in mathematics, philosophy, science, theology or mysticism, provided we don’t use it to screen off rational enquiry where it can be legitimately applied.

How would you compare learned ignorance to pluralism? Or at least the effects thereof?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Hey everyone! This thread just made it to the CAF Hot Topics List!

 

[cpayne]

Hey everyone! This thread just made it to the CAF Hot Topics List!

Next goal: the title question as a “People” magazine cover story. Onward and up(?)ward!

 

[Greg27]

Pluralism can be defined in a number of ways. In a postmodern context it might be defined as regarding all different views about the truth as relative and of equal validity in ‘truth’ terms; there is no one Truth or heirarchy of truths, rather, truth only exists diffusively across a range of multiplicity and has no central core. Learned ignorance on the other hand, believes there is a truth, but as one comes closer to it out conceptions of what it is (whatever those conceptions might be) fall short of the reality. I would take care with applying this though because it could easily become an empty slogan which could be used to defend agnosticism, skepticism and anti-intellectualism, whereby I don’t think learned ignorance is designed to ‘euthanaise’ the healthy and inquisitive mind in its search for truth but rather encourage it to search its depths.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I always thought that pluralism restored power to the Church’s point of view, if only because it was back in the frey again. And of course because logically the Church can back up her point of view.