It is scientifically impossible for something to be scientifically impossible.

[Rdivine]

Do paradoxes really exist, or are they just self- contradictory that they cancel each other out? Its hard to explain in words.

Paradoxes are a very great mystery to everyone. Here is an example of a paradox involving time travel. I can recall today that my dog died from allergies to chocolate , and we buried him in the afternoon. At night he came back to tell me to not feed him chocolate next time. Seems like he time travelled from the past, before his death, to prevent his death..

Have fun figuring this out.

Side note: My grandfather is younger than me, and i went back in time to poison my mother, before she gave birth to me. While i was at the past, i prevented the inventors of the internet to invent the internet. Also, i managed to stop myself from writing this post.

Have a nice day, everyone.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Rdivine

[toric5]

if it is impossible by the laws of physics.

[Red Iron Crown]

if it is impossible by the laws of physics.

The laws of physics aren't written in stone, they are subject to revision as new observations are made.

Nothing is scientifically impossible, nothing is scientifically proven. That's not how science works.

[vger]

If something is scientifically impossible, then it has logically been proven to be wrong. If you tell someone to prove you wrong, you get hit with the "burden of proof" argument, and "you can't prove a negative." So from that perspective... yup. Never thought of "scientifically impossible" that way though.

[Jouni]

Paradoxes are problems of language and its misuse. You can go back in time a bit to ask Wittgenstein to explain it in more detail.

[Twreed87]

It's scientifically impossible for pi to equal exactly 3. A circle's circumference will never be exactly 3 times it's diameter.

[Red Iron Crown]

It's scientifically impossible for pi to equal exactly 3. A circle's circumference will never be exactly 3 times it's diameter.

No, that's mathematically impossible. Scientifically it is only a very well supported theory.

[theend3r]

There are far more interesting paradoxes such as the one formulated by Bertrand Rusell:

Consider a set of all sets that are not members of themselves. Is this set a member of itself? If it is, it isn't; and if it isn't, it is.

Like Jouni said, "paradoxes" stem from language misuse or errors in the language itself.

Edited June 21, 2014 by theend3r

[Comrade Jenkens]

There are always people who seem to think that we have reached the limits of possibility with our technology. They will always be proven wrong.

[Guest]

It's scientifically impossible for pi to equal exactly 3. A circle's circumference will never be exactly 3 times it's diameter.

It is possible for Pi to equal 3. You just have to use base Pi/3. Pi/3=1, 2Pi/3=2 and Pi=3. QED. Of course, all the other numbers become very weird then...

[xcorps]

Paradoxes are a very great mystery to everyone.

Not really. Most paradoxes occur due to a lack of data, or appear to be paradoxes but are really just counter intuitive.

Like a potato made of 99% water drying to 98% water but losing half of its weight. Or French persons having a low incidence of cardiac events despite having diets high in saturated fat.

[ecat]

The laws of physics aren't written in stone, they are subject to revision as new observations are made.

Nothing is scientifically impossible, nothing is scientifically proven. That's not how science works.

Ouch.

The opening statement of this comment is entirely correct but also completely misleading. The laws of physics are not written in stone, the laws of physics are written in something far more durable. The fundamental laws of physics are written in very fabric of the universe and if not absolutely immutable they are consistent over cosmically significant time frames. They are not open to interpretation, they may not be bent a little for convince and they are not prone to random change through flights of fancy.

If the fundamental physics of the universe prevent an event from happening it will never happen.

Our understanding of fundamental physics is open to change. As new evidence becomes available and new measurement techniques reveal variations from predicted outcomes our understanding becomes more complete and our models, explanations and theories are modified to reflect this.

So, the statement

The laws of physics aren't written in stone, they are subject to revision as new observations are made.

allows the conclusion

Nothing is scientifically impossible, nothing is scientifically proven.

but only because our understanding is incomplete.

However, the statement

While our understanding of and ability to fully describe the fundamental laws of physics is incomplete, the fundamental laws are themselves absolute and therefore not open to revision.

necessitates the conclusion

If the fundamental laws of physics prohibit an even from happening it will never happen.

Edited June 21, 2014 by ecat
Corrected spelling of 'may'

[Dunbaratu]

Ouch.

The opening statement of this comment is entirely correct but also completely misleading. The laws of physics are not written in stone, the laws of physics are written in something far more durable. The fundamental laws of physics are written in very fabric of the universe and if not absolutely immutable they are consistent over cosmically significant time frames. They are not open to interpretation, they mat not be bent a little for convince and they are not prone to random change through flights of fancy.

It is impossible to know the difference between an understanding about physics that's correct versus an understanding about physics that we simply haven't discovered is wrong *yet*. As far as human understanding goes, the sort of thing you're referring to as the "laws of physics" are not attainable. They are only asymptotically approachable.

As far as human knowledge is concerned, we shouldn't be making the statement "thats proven impossible by the laws of physics" because we are not in a position to be able to know if what we *thought* was the correct view of the laws of physics really is.

There's an enormous difference between saying "in principle there have to be laws of physics that cannot be contravened" versus saying "I, a human being, am in a position to be able to know if I have one of those laws or not, and therefore I am in a position to judge that your proposal is impossible".

What we can do is say, "your proposal would require that we break down a LOT of what we thought we already knew and we'd have to destroy a lot of our knowledge as invalid and start over. It is therefore an intellectually *expensive* proposal to accept. Therefore there'd better be a damn good reason to accept it - something better than just you saying so."

The more intellectually expensive a proposition is to accept, the more overwhelming evidence it takes to make it worth accepting it. If one instance shows results in contraction to millions of other instances, it's far more likely that the anomaly is due to something being read wrong, or a glitchy experiment than being due to the scientific community being utterly wrong about some perceived law that had been used to build and design many things that do in fact work.

[theend3r]

It is impossible to know the difference between an understanding about physics that's correct versus an understanding about physics that we simply haven't discovered is wrong *yet*. As far as human understanding goes, the sort of thing you're referring to as the "laws of physics" are not attainable. They are only asymptotically approachable.

As far as human knowledge is concerned, we shouldn't be making the statement "thats proven impossible by the laws of physics" because we are not in a position to be able to know if what we *thought* was the correct view of the laws of physics really is.

There's an enormous difference between saying "in principle there have to be laws of physics that cannot be contravened" versus saying "I, a human being, am in a position to be able to know if I have one of those laws or not, and therefore I am in a position to judge that your proposal is impossible".

What we can do is say, "your proposal would require that we break down a LOT of what we thought we already knew and we'd have to destroy a lot of our knowledge as invalid and start over. It is therefore an intellectually *expensive* proposal to accept. Therefore there'd better be a damn good reason to accept it - something better than just you saying so."

The more intellectually expensive a proposition is to accept, the more overwhelming evidence it takes to make it worth accepting it. If one instance shows results in contraction to millions of other instances, it's far more likely that the anomaly is due to something being read wrong, or a glitchy experiment than being due to the scientific community being utterly wrong about some perceived law that had been used to build and design many things that do in fact work.

Funny thing is that both of you are right

Trying to think outside of confines of our understanding of universe is ridiculous though. We may just be brains in vats in an completely different universe where gravity is the result of invisible flying dwarves lifting things.

Edited June 21, 2014 by theend3r

[ecat]

"in principle there have to be laws of physics that cannot be contravened"

Excellent, you've managed to reduced this discussion to a single statement

Let's first get rid of the "in principle" part, not only is it superfluous it's open to interpretation and therefore potentially misleading. Second, let's replace the assumptive "have to" with the assertive "are". This leaves "there are laws of physics that cannot be contravened".

To me that looks very much like a null hypotheses or default position. As good scientists it is our job to find evidence that disproves the null hypotheses.

So, one simple proposition and all you need to do is find one verifiable case that disproves it.

If you do not start with the assumption "there are laws of physics that cannot be contravened" then you explicitly accept a world of magic and superstition. Such a position may be your preferred choice but you leave yourself open to countless scams and con-artists.

It is perfectly valid to imagine a fantastical world in which you would like to live but it is important to remember that flights of fancy are not evidence of reality.

Trying to think outside of confines of our understanding of universe is ridiculous though. We may just be brains in vats in an completely different universe where gravity is the result of invisible flying dwarves lifting things.

It may interest you to know that these are the exact words you will find engraved on the base of the silver teapot orbiting Mars

Edited June 21, 2014 by ecat

[Red Iron Crown]

The laws of physics are a man-made mathematical model of how the Universe behaves, but that model will never be complete (see Godel's incompleteness theorems). The idea that there is a perfect underlying mathematical expression for the Universe is just an ideal.

So I stand by my statement that the laws of physics aren't written in stone, as they are man-made, incomplete, and perpetually subject to revision and refinement.

[ecat]

Then we are at an impasse.

My position:

The laws of physics are fundamental to the fabric of our universe. The theories we devise to explain how these laws function are the man-made mathematical models.

Would you care to suggest a common term we can use to refer to these actual interactions which occur without heed for our observation, understanding or reasoning?

[Tery215]

How would a dog be able to talk, much less prevent his death after he died?

[quasarrgames]

Furthermore, white holes.

Mathematics and science are different. Mathematics is just a common guideline that science follows depending on what it had for breakfast, and how it is feeling today.

Edited June 22, 2014 by quasarrgames

[theend3r]

How would a dog be able to talk, much less prevent his death after he died?

Such a possibility has been explained in this video:

[Tery215]

Such a possibility has been explained in this video:

But magic is just a bogus excuse for a lack of scientific investigation...

[Red Iron Crown]

Then we are at an impasse.

My position:

The laws of physics are fundamental to the fabric of our universe. The theories we devise to explain how these laws function are the man-made mathematical models.

Would you care to suggest a common term we can use to refer to these actual interactions which occur without heed for our observation, understanding or reasoning?

There is only observation.

We're getting more into philosophy than science, I'm afraid.

[lajoswinkler]

It is impossible for a test tube filled with helium to start screaming: "I WANT CANDY!!!"

[vger]

It is impossible for a test tube filled with helium to start screaming: "I WANT CANDY!!!"

Cover the end with the right material, give it the ability to release the helium and change shape, and I bet you could do it

Or at least as well as a parrot could.

[lajoswinkler]

Cover the end with the right material, give it the ability to release the helium and change shape, and I bet you could do it

Or at least as well as a parrot could.

I didn't say "a test tube with cover on one end, being able to release the gas and change shape", I've said "a test tube filled with helium".

In addition, it would be impossible for our atmosphere to spontaneously freeze, fall to the ground, pile up on some tiny island and then launch itself towards the Sun, all in one hour of time.