It is scientifically impossible for something to be scientifically impossible.

[ecat]

There is only observation.

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

So you are invalidating my question on the grounds that the tree made no sound. Yet even if you were there at the time and heard the sound, since observation is subjective (should it then be subservation ?) your testimony would be simultaneously unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

For a statement to have merit in the world of science it must be verifiable and/or falsifiable. Resorting to philosophy would get us nowhere.

Except, this is the whole point of science and why the scientific approach has proven to be such a successful tool:

First you make an observation.

Then you propose a theory to explain the observation.

Next you use your theory to make predictions about when the occurrence you observed will next happen or other observations you should be able make during the occurrence or how you would expect to observe similar occurrences in different circumstances, etcetera. Your theory makes predictions.

If the predictions you make match these future occurrences you have not only taken a step towards proving your theory you have also taken a step towards proving your observation is actually part of a reality independent of yourself.

Finally, you inform independent others of your findings and if your work is valid they too go on to confirm predictions and further confirm your theory and the existence of your observation as part of a reality independent of all of the involved individuals.

There is only observation.

No.

This is exactly the sort of nonsense the scientific method seeks to eradicate.

Tune in next week when we discuss: "Paranoia. The solipsists best friend?"

[Red Iron Crown]

So you are invalidating my question on the grounds that the tree made no sound. Yet even if you were there at the time and heard the sound, since observation is subjective (should it then be subservation ?) your testimony would be simultaneously unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

For a statement to have merit in the world of science it must be verifiable and/or falsifiable. Resorting to philosophy would get us nowhere.

Except, this is the whole point of science and why the scientific approach has proven to be such a successful tool:

First you make an observation.

Then you propose a theory to explain the observation.

Next you use your theory to make predictions about when the occurrence you observed will next happen or other observations you should be able make during the occurrence or how you would expect to observe similar occurrences in different circumstances, etcetera. Your theory makes predictions.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think the scientific method is not useful or productive, I can assure you that is not the case.

But you must admit that science is based entirely on observation. That which cannot be observed cannot be meaningfully said to exist in scientific terms.

If the predictions you make match these future occurrences you have not only taken a step towards proving your theory you have also taken a step towards proving your observation is actually part of a reality independent of yourself.

You'll have to forgive me here, but there is no such thing as proof in science. Proofs are for math, science is the realm of observation and theory. Once something is correctly proven mathematically, it is proven for all time and cannot be refuted. No scientific theory has this property, nor should it. A theory is never guaranteed 100% accurate, the best we can ever say for a theory is that it adequately explains all observations.

Finally, you inform independent others of your findings and if your work is valid they too go on to confirm predictions and further confirm your theory and the existence of your observation as part of a reality independent of all of the involved individuals.

No, there is no independent reality, there is only the aggregate of observations. That aggregation reduces error and bias, but it is still observation.

[phoenix_ca]

Of course you can say something is scientifically impossible. All that means is that based on current scientific knowledge, something is not possible. Should that understanding change, what was once impossible would become possible, but this stems from science being, the most absolute sense, a subjective body of knowledge. If it were completely objectively true, this change wouldn't be possible.

Something that is objectively true is immutable. The law of identity might be and example of this, though I prefer Descartes' cogito ergo sum, as it's even more difficult to imagine any possible universe where that would not be true.

Furthermore, there is objective reality. Our best method for aligning our knowledge as closely as we can to this reality is science. An omniscient being could claim to know objective reality.

So, yes, one can claim something to be scientifically impossible in the same way one can claim something to be biblically impossible. Both are based on incomplete sets of knowledge compared to objective reality.

Edited June 22, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[vger]

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".

If the test tube is "filled" with a lighter-than-air gas, wouldn't it need to be capped?

[phoenix_ca]

If the test tube is "filled" with a lighter-than-air gas, wouldn't it need to be capped?

No. It could be upside-down.

[GoSlash27]

If the test tube is "filled" with a lighter-than-air gas, wouldn't it need to be capped?

Not if you hold it upside down

*EDIT* Ninja'd!

[GoSlash27]

My official position: Any argument that begins with "it is scientifically impossible for something to be scientifically impossible" is bound to contain a logical fallacy somewhere since it is fallacious to argue the impossibility of the basis of your own argument. It's the logical equivalent of dividing by zero.

By declaring scientific impossibility impossible, you have just argued that your own argument cannot possibly be true. FWIW, I agree

Edited June 22, 2014 by GoSlash27

[EuSouONumero345]

Yes, every time I have nothing to do, I think of paradoxes...it's just...they are so weird....

Paradoxes are cool.

Also, I suppose it is not impossible for something to be impossible-specially in science, where you can't state something is fully correct, after all, you can't be fully sure of it.

[ecat]

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I think the scientific method is not useful or productive, I can assure you that is not the case.

I have no idea what passes through your mind. I simply requested you to provide a term or phrase we could both use when referring to what I call the laws of physics. You declined the request and threatened to drag us all into the circle of hell known as philosophy. I replied to your comment on observation.

But you must admit that science is based entirely on observation. That which cannot be observed cannot be meaningfully said to exist in scientific terms.

What exactly do you you mean by observation? I imagine a blind man walking off the edge of a cliff and not succumbing to gravity, because, observation or lack of it in this case.

We observe in visible light, infra-red, ultra violet, radio waves, micro waves. We have machines that observe and find the same results and machines which observe the observing machines. And if an observation is in doubt we look for associated phenomena as confirmation an event took place.

You'll have to forgive me here, but there is no such thing as proof in science. Proofs are for math, science is the realm of observation and theory. Once something is correctly proven mathematically, it is proven for all time and cannot be refuted. No scientific theory has this property, nor should it. A theory is never guaranteed 100% accurate, the best we can ever say for a theory is that it adequately explains all observations.

Firstly, would you prefer the word validating? Maybe re-enforcing? Providing greater credibility to the default position and lessening the evidence against it?

Even in mathematics the problem must be observed, the solution must be observed. An observed mathematical proof may be considered absolute but if observation is not considered sufficient evidence... your turn with this slippery petard.

100% accurate. Why is that important? If I drop an apple from my hand it will fall to the ground, this is enough for most people. If I drop an apple from a height of 1m it will hit the ground with a velocity of 4.905m/s is sufficient for almost everyone. In theory we can refine our equations down to Plank length and Plank time, we would still be unable the guarantee 100% accuracy but would it matter?

No, there is no independent reality, there is only the aggregate of observations. That aggregation reduces error and bias, but it is still observation.

"there is no independent reality". How exactly do you prove a negative? If you state "there is an independent reality" you can build evidence to eventually discredit the idea.

Leaving the world of immaterialism for the world of pragmatism. If the aggregate of observations is self consistent and the best model of the universe we have available then I suggest we make best use of it. If this means calling it reality, well as I have no other frames of reference, I'm happy to do so

[Dodgey]

The laws of physics are man made definitions based on observation which accuratly describe the universe as we see it. They are descriptive laws not procriptive.

Observation is the act of recieving information. I put my hand on the stove and observed that it is hot.

I have a machine which observes flucuations in the magnetic field adjacent to it.

A blind man walking off a cliff observes that his foot doesn't hit the ground, he observes the wind rushing past his face, he observes a change in acceleration.

In mathmatics the act of observing the numbers on the page is not questioned due to its independent confirmability. The observation of the numbers on the paper is said to have so much reliability it makes no difference.

The reason total certainty is not a thing in science is because there is no such thing aside from the logical absolutes but that is another discussion. It is about being honest to the best of your ability, to say that something is 100% certain is false without knowing all of the variables, which we do in mathmatics.

[phoenix_ca]

@Red Iron Crown: The existence of a subjective reality necessitates the existence of an objective reality for one to subjectively understand.

[ecat]

@Red Iron Crown: The existence of a subjective reality necessitates the existence of an objective reality for one to subjectively understand.

So we do have an objective reality?

Some of the posts here would suggest that all we have is an aggregate of observations, though no one has yet given me a general word to describe the processes we are observing. Well, apart from the word 'universe' which I find too general in scope to be useful.

I think I'm lacking a frame of reference for some of these posts. The phrase 'all we have is observations', is that because science truly does not believe anything happens unless it is observed happening? Is it some spin (no pun intended) on the quantum world of collapsing probability functions? Or is this some comment about the delusionary nature of human perception? The latter would be particularly interesting, as the purest of the pure, mathematics, is the product of a delusionary species, patting a mathematician on the head while saying 'oh, the equation for area of a circle' is akin to patting an inmate on the head and saying 'but of course you are Napoleon' - this last bit is a joke

@Dodgey

That helped some and I was writing a reply but it was mostly waffling. Perhaps I'll try again later.

Edited June 22, 2014 by ecat
Added joke warning for the sense of humour transplant doners.

[ZetaX]

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

Nope. It is mathematically possible by choosing a weird metric or have positive curvature. But the latter can even happen in reality as space(time) is not flat but curved.

[Guest]

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.

Actually, that's not impossible. There's literally nothing in mechanics that prevents this from happening. However, the likelihood of such "thermodynamic miracle" is so astonishingly small it's irrelevant. As long as conservation of energy is followed (meaning Earth would heat up greatly, then be thrown in the opposite direction as the frozen mass blasts off), an event has a finite probability. It'd be one heck of a coincidence, though.

A simpler example would be: you throw a ball down to the ground. It's potential energy turns to kinetic energy, which then turns into heat. There's nothing preventing this heat (stored in the surface it impacted) from concentrating and launching the ball back at you. It's just extremely unlikely, you'd have to wait longer than the age of universe for that to happen. That's how thermodynamics work. The laws themselves always apply, but there are random fluctuations that can locally and temporarily violate them.

[phoenix_ca]

So we do have an objective reality?

Absolutely, though given the constraints of our current forms it would be pretty much impossible for any human to ever understand this objective reality in a truly objective manner. In fact the existence of objective reality is sometimes used as a (sort of but not really) more robust defence of the existence of a god than things like the circular reasoning of saying that a book says so.

Some of the posts here would suggest that all we have is an aggregate of observations, though no one has yet given me a general word to describe the processes we are observing. Well, apart from the word 'universe' which I find too general in scope to be useful.

In the field of science, the term "universe" is anything but general.

I think I'm lacking a frame of reference for some of these posts. The phrase 'all we have is observations', is that because science truly does not believe anything happens unless it is observed happening? Is it some spin (no pun intended) on the quantum world of collapsing probability functions? Or is this some comment about the delusionary nature of human perception? The latter would be particularly interesting, as the purest of the pure, mathematics, is the product of a delusionary species, patting a mathematician on the head while saying 'oh, the equation for area of a circle' is akin to patting an inmate on the head and saying 'but of course you are Napoleon' - this last bit is a joke

There is quite literally no evidence that you should actually believe that what you observe is true. It could all be an elaborate hoax played on you by some outside entity. You could be a brain in a vat, or a computer, or a sophisticated simulation. Not that living your life thinking that would be rational at all; there is no evidence for it.

[Tinyboss]

Nope. It is mathematically possible by choosing a weird metric or have positive curvature. But the latter can even happen in reality as space(time) is not flat but curved.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "pi". If you define it to be the smallest positive x such that exp(ix)+1=0, (with the standard Taylor series definition of the natural exponential function), then you don't really have much wiggle room to say that it can be anything else.

I realize that we aren't talking about circles anymore, but this does give an example of mathematical impossibility.

[lajoswinkler]

Actually, that's not impossible. There's literally nothing in mechanics that prevents this from happening. However, the likelihood of such "thermodynamic miracle" is so astonishingly small it's irrelevant. As long as conservation of energy is followed (meaning Earth would heat up greatly, then be thrown in the opposite direction as the frozen mass blasts off), an event has a finite probability. It'd be one heck of a coincidence, though.

A simpler example would be: you throw a ball down to the ground. It's potential energy turns to kinetic energy, which then turns into heat. There's nothing preventing this heat (stored in the surface it impacted) from concentrating and launching the ball back at you. It's just extremely unlikely, you'd have to wait longer than the age of universe for that to happen. That's how thermodynamics work. The laws themselves always apply, but there are random fluctuations that can locally and temporarily violate them.

We can say that the chance of that occuring is statistically infinitesimally small. Realistically speaking, it is impossible. Zero chance.

Realistic "violations" can occur for tiny systems with very small number of elements. Not true violationsFor macroscopic systems, especially huge, bulk material, realistic chance for that is zero. You could do the experiment for a googolplex of times and it would not happen.

Nope. It is mathematically possible by choosing a weird metric or have positive curvature. But the latter can even happen in reality as space(time) is not flat but curved.

That's why it's neccessary to establish conditions in which something is claimed. In defined circumstances, certain things are impossible.