Realisable possibilities

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

kennethamy
 
Reply Tue 11 May, 2010 08:52 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;162937 wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding me. What is technically possible is a proper subset of what is physically possible, and what is physically possible is a proper subset of what is logically possible. But what is epistemically possible is not a proper subset of any of these, as what is epistemically possible is dependent upon a particular individual's state of knowledge. It may be that a complex contradiction, for example, may not be recognized as a contradiction by someone, and so it may be epistemically possible for someone.

Basically, the less one knows, the more things are epistemically possible. This explains why people who know little or nothing about how science works often imagine all sorts of silly things are "possible".

So, if "realizable possibility" meant "epistemic possibility", then it would not be a proper subset of what is physically possible.


I must have misunderstood you, since I agree with all of the above.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 01:15 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;162934 wrote:
You mean that only what is actual is a real possibility? Hmm. So nothing can be a real possibility unless it is actual. Maybe, but it sort of undermines the point of saying that something is possible. Don't you think? I used to think that some real possibilities were maybe not actual, but that they really could be real for all we knew. For instance, that there are ET's are real possibilities since for all we know, there are ETs. But I guess I won't think that anymore.


No, i believe every possible ways things could be, exist. If we accept this assumption, then ordinary talk of probability like "It is highly probable that he came home" can translated to "In most possible worlds similar in kind to our world, he came home". etc..
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 01:19 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;163330 wrote:
No, i believe every possible ways things could be, exist. If we accept this assumption, .


But why should anyone accept that? It is obviously false. It is possible that McCain (or anyone) is president rather than Obama. Alas! Alas!.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 02:42 am
@kennethamy,
It may help to contrast realisable possibilities or real possibilities with pure possibilities.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 03:43 AM ----------

kennethamy;163332 wrote:
But why should anyone accept that? It is obviously false. It is possible that McCain (or anyone) is president rather than Obama. Alas! Alas!.


The time has passed. That is no longer a realisable possibility.
 
ughaibu
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 03:19 am
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;162901 wrote:
I think, though, we had better simply let U. say what is meant by the cryptic phrase, "realizable possibility", as on the face of it, it is redundant, but is close to saying something that isn't (such as your "real possibility" or my "realistic possibility").
If the world is determined, then there is a fact about the evolution of the world which includes the result of any choice, this means that only one possibility is realisable in such a world. On the other hand, if an agent has free will, then that agent can make conscious choices from amongst realisable alternatives, unrestricted physical possibility is insufficient for free will. For example, I'm capable of riding a bicycle, so that's a physical possibility for me, however, if I'm swimming, and I make a conscious choice to change from breast stroke to back stroke, changing to riding a bicycle isn't a realisable possibility.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 03:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;163332 wrote:
But why should anyone accept that? It is obviously false. It is possible that McCain (or anyone) is president rather than Obama. Alas! Alas!.



It is not at all obvious. It is probable true!:whistling:
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 12 May, 2010 06:08 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;163340 wrote:
It may help to contrast realisable possibilities or real possibilities with pure possibilities.

---------- Post added 05-12-2010 at 03:43 AM ----------



The time has passed. That is no longer a realisable possibility.


But it was, I fervently hope!
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 04:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;163363 wrote:
But it was, I fervently hope!


Did i kill your hopes? I take it that you don ` t want to debate this point with me? Don` t give up so soon.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 08:43 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;163818 wrote:
Did i kill your hopes? I take it that you don ` t want to debate this point with me? Don` t give up so soon.



For most people who are chess amateurs, although checkmating an opponent with only two bishops and a king is a possibility, it is not a realizable possibility. They don't know how to do it, at least within the 50 move limit. "Realizable" in the phrase, "realizable possibility" gets its meaning from what is not possible within certain parameters, and not from what is possible within those parameters.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 03:37 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;163867 wrote:
For most people who are chess amateurs, although checkmating an opponent with only two bishops and a king is a possibility, it is not a realizable possibility. They don't know how to do it, at least within the 50 move limit. "Realizable" in the phrase, "realizable possibility" gets its meaning from what is not possible within certain parameters, and not from what is possible within those parameters.


I have no interest in that topic. Good bye.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 06:47 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;163995 wrote:
I have no interest in that topic. Good bye.


Then why have you been participating in the discussion? Most odd!
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 07:21 pm
@Jebediah,
Jebediah;162244 wrote:
But it isn't a possibility at all. So you could just say "Me taking flight by flapping my arms is not a possibility".


Well, it is a logical possibility, but it is physically impossible.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Thu 13 May, 2010 09:20 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;163330 wrote:
No, i believe every possible ways things could be, exist. If we accept this assumption, then ordinary talk of probability like "It is highly probable that he came home" can translated to "In most possible worlds similar in kind to our world, he came home". etc..

I'm somewhat familiar with this way of talking about possible worlds. It reminds one almost immediately of multiple universes posited by some theorists in physics. Are logically possible worlds and multiverse related in some important way. I think the two may have grown up together in the same nursery perhaps.

Looking around a bit I find (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the terminology "possible worlds" is attributed to Kripke in the late 1950's at Harvard. Similarly the terminology "quantum multiverse" is attributed to Everette around the same time at Princeton.

I'm guessing the history of the two ideas is deeply related (though the logical manifestation of theme is much older). Oddly, I notice that the wiki article for Multiverse makes no mention of Kripke and the article for "Possible words" makes no mention of Everette.

Possible world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Google searches for "Kripke" and "Everett" do yield quite a few hits.

I do think that since what causes* the many universes is something different from what causes* the many possible worlds but in what ways might it be the same.

We have a whole set of words to deal with: possible, probable, actual, realisable etc. Logic, mathematics and physics (especially quantum physics) in some areas become indistinguishable. Is this one of those areas?



* I'm going with the broader Aristotelean concept of causality here.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 03:05 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164036 wrote:
Then why have you been participating in the discussion? Most odd!


No. I was trying to advocate modal realism. You are interested in something different.It isI funny that you think everything is odd if you don` t know it. You must be saying odd all the time.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 03:40 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;164354 wrote:
No. I was trying to advocate modal realism. You are interested in something different.It isI funny that you think everything is odd if you don` t know it. You must be saying odd all the time.


Touche'!............
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Fri 14 May, 2010 06:02 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;164371 wrote:
Touche'!............


How so? I am only saying the truth. Can you blame me for that?

---------- Post added 05-14-2010 at 07:14 PM ----------

Deckard;164064 wrote:
I'm somewhat familiar with this way of talking about possible worlds. It reminds one almost immediately of multiple universes posited by some theorists in physics. Are logically possible worlds and multiverse related in some important way. I think the two may have grown up together in the same nursery perhaps.

Looking around a bit I find (and correct me if I'm wrong) that the terminology "possible worlds" is attributed to Kripke in the late 1950's at Harvard. Similarly the terminology "quantum multiverse" is attributed to Everette around the same time at Princeton.

I'm guessing the history of the two ideas is deeply related (though the logical manifestation of theme is much older). Oddly, I notice that the wiki article for Multiverse makes no mention of Kripke and the article for "Possible words" makes no mention of Everette.

Possible world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Multiverse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, Google searches for "Kripke" and "Everett" do yield quite a few hits.

I do think that since what causes* the many universes is something different from what causes* the many possible worlds but in what ways might it be the same.

We have a whole set of words to deal with: possible, probable, actual, realisable etc. Logic, mathematics and physics (especially quantum physics) in some areas become indistinguishable. Is this one of those areas?



* I'm going with the broader Aristotelean concept of causality here.


Possible world might be invented as a tool to understand the syntax of modal logic, but it is David Lewis ` s idea that really amuse the hell out of me. Not to menton, it is way cool. :shifty:

As to the multiverse proposted by Everett, it is extremely conservative in my opinion. According to Everett, the wave function central to Quantum mechanics never "collapses", but branch out at each quantum event. There is a quantum event that lead you to talk to the girl in the counter, and there is an event where you don` t. Both events bifurcate to different worlds where you do, and you don` t. This endless spliting of worlds at every quantum event are conservative in my opinion, because in all the worlds, they all are still obeying the rules of quantum mechanics. I think there are worlds obeying different equations all together.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:09 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;162117 wrote:
Today, this was posted:Personally, I dont see any difficulty in understanding what is meant by a realisable possibility. Nevertheless, I'm informed that neither I nor anyone else knows what this phrase means. I would be interested to know whether readers find this phrase obscure, unclear, readily comprehensible, or whatever.


Hi Ughaibu,

Seems pretty clear to me "posibilities that can be realised".
Such as - The possibilities for more advanced technology in computer software, for example, evolving from what we use today.

If I'm wrong, just ignore me.

Thank you, and journey well.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 04:19 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;164424 wrote:
As to the multiverse proposted by Everett, it is extremely conservative in my opinion. According to Everett, the wave function central to Quantum mechanics never "collapses", but branch out at each quantum event. There is a quantum event that lead you to talk to the girl in the counter, and there is an event where you don` t. Both events bifurcate to different worlds where you do, and you don` t. This endless spliting of worlds at every quantum event are conservative in my opinion, because in all the worlds, they all are still obeying the rules of quantum mechanics. I think there are worlds obeying different equations all together.


Hi Turing,

I think the same, but, having invested more time in configuring it, perceive a much, much greater event altogether. Trying to write it in this forum, where every word is ripped apart at its' origin, is almost impossible, though.
Still, we persevere...

Thank you turing, and prosper wonderfully.

Mark...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/18/2024 at 07:54:21