Is It Possible to Defy the Limits of Human Potential?

[thehacker3]

So impossibility is impossible?

Edit: This thread is fun.

gg


probably the most profound answer to a philosophical question I've ever seen

 

[cronxeh]

how do you take the integral?

Very, very, carefully.

 

[ƒ(x)]

Very, very, carefully.

Should i use gloves?

 

[cronxeh]

Should i use gloves?

I prefer 'bomb first, ask questions later' approach. And I have too much ethanol in my system right now to make jokes

 

[Ignorant_twit]

Quoting or replying this post without reading it, greetings from New York City by the way.

 

[cronxeh]

Quoting or replying this post without reading it, greetings from New York City by the way.

Hey are you stalking me?? I AM NYC

 

[ƒ(x)]

Hey are you stalking me?? I AM NYC

Next to Your Couch?

 

[Office_Shredder]

I'm pretty sure that the negation of "It's impossible for barbers to shave themselves" is "It's possible for barbers to shave themselves". But Russell and Godel made the big bucks by claiming that both statements were themselves impossible.

If the statement is "It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves", then the statement X is impossible means that X is: barber's can shave themselves. Not X is barber's cannot shave themselves. So the final step in the transformation is it's possible barber's cannot shave themselves. If it was impossible for them to shave themselves, then certainly it's possible that they can't shave themselves

 

[cronxeh]

Next to Your Couch?

Load universe into a cannon.. Aim at the brain.. Shoot!

 

[Char. Limit]

Beyond human limits are impossible.

Impossible for humans, maybe.

 

[Danger]

Edit: This thread is fun.

Fun?! Fun you say?! Here we are in the midst of a serious scientific discussion of something with absolutely no relevance, and you're trying to have fun?!
Banish him, I say, to the depths of GD?!

Oh, crap... never mind; we're already in GD...

 

[ƒ(x)]

Load universe into a cannon

quite possibly the ultimate bfg?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

If the statement is "It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves", then the statement X is impossible means that X is: barber's can shave themselves. Not X is barber's cannot shave themselves. So the final step in the transformation is it's possible barber's cannot shave themselves. If it was impossible for them to shave themselves, then certainly it's possible that they can't shave themselves

The opposite of impossible is possible. The opposite of "It's impossible" is "It's possible". The opposite of "It's impossible for barbers to shave themselves" is "It's possible for barbers to shave themselves". I have no idea why you struggle so with this.

 

[wolram]

If the statement is "It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves", then the statement X is impossible means that X is: barber's can shave themselves. Not X is barber's cannot shave themselves. So the final step in the transformation is it's possible barber's cannot shave themselves. If it was impossible for them to shave themselves, then certainly it's possible that they can't shave themselves

This one is doing my head in

 

[Office_Shredder]

The opposite of impossible is possible. The opposite of "It's impossible" is "It's possible". The opposite of "It's impossible for barbers to shave themselves" is "It's possible for barbers to shave themselves". I have no idea why you struggle so with this.

Because I'm not taking the opposite of the statement "It's impossible for barbers to shave themselves". I'm taking the opposite of something which is impossible, and then saying that the new thing is possible. X is in the set of impossible things if X is impossible, but the statement "It's impossible for barbers to shave themselves" is not itself impossible (assuming it's true)

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So if the original statement is: It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves, then the negation is it's possible that barber's can not shave themselves.

Because I'm not taking the opposite of the statement "It's impossible for barbers to shave themselves".

I'm at a loss here.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The first quote is worded poorly. When you say "It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves", this is equivalent to "barber's can shave themselves is in the set of impossible things". I was abusing notation by referring to "It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves" as the statement when I really wanted to refer to the statement which is contained in the set of impossible things. Then you negate the statement in the set of impossible things:

"barbers can shave themselves" turns into "barbers can not shave themselves".

And this new statement is in the set of possible things, a shorthand way of saying this is "It's possible barbers can not shave themselves"

 

[loseyourname]

not is a logical negation. So if the original statement is: It's impossible for barber's to shave themselves, then the negation is it's possible that barber's can not shave themselves. Basically, if something is impossible then it's possible that it's impossible. If you have a reverse inclusion or a surjection feel free to share it

The statement you'd be negating is "It is not possible that barbers can shave themselves." The negation is "It is not not possible that barbers can shave themselves" or "It is possible that barbers can shave themselves."

What you're proposing is one of the implications of a DeMorgan equivalence in a normal modal logic. "It is not possible that X" is the same as saying "It is necessary that not X," which implies "It is possible that not X." But this isn't the negation of the original statement. It's just implied by it.

 

[Mentallic]

If there was ever a way to promote physics forums and describe the users that lurk it, this thread would do the trick.

 

[wolram]

Its impossible to prove time is real or not.

 

[rolerbe]

Great line from the movie 'Contact'

Palmer: "Do you love your father?"
Ellie: "Yes, of course."
Palmer: "Prove it."

 

[Borg]

It is impossible to go back in time and give birth to yourself - especially if you are male.

 

[JaredJames]

I prefer 'bomb first, ask questions later' approach.

American?