If I can imagine it, it's logically possible?

Speakpigeon

Valued Senior Member
If I can imagine it, it's logically possible.
Test: square circle? No, I can't.
Test: The Earth is flat? Yes, I can.
Test: God? Well, I sure can imagine something, but I wouldn't say it looks like God. So, me, I can't.
OK, it's good to me, if I can imagine it, it's logically possible.
EB

I can imagine having an ice cream cone.

Er, "Test" I mean.

If I can imagine it, it's logically possible.
If anything, that's just a limitation of logic. As I have been known to say, logic is only as good as the material it works with - i.e. bad premises --> bad conclusions.

If anything, that's just a limitation of logic. As I have been known to say, logic is only as good as the material it works with - i.e. bad premises --> bad conclusions.
One can have very good logic and still conclude to falsehoods. False conclusions isn't necessarily bad logic.
Still, could you explain precisely how using imagination as proof that something is a logical possibility would affect premises and therefore conclusions from them.
EB

Still, could you explain precisely how using imagination as proof that something is a logical possibility would affect premises and therefore conclusions from them.
Well, if the premises are imaginary....

If I can imagine it, it's logically possible.
Where does a perpetual motion fit in to this? Is the argument that there exists some world where the laws of thermodynamics are different (if any exist in that world) - and as such the machine is logically possible?

Well, if the premises are imaginary....
To say that God is a logical possibility is not at all to conclude that God exists.
You don't infer anything merely from logical possibilities.
Sometimes you can, but then it's good logic and true conclusion because the logical possibility in question just happens to be true.
EB

Where does a perpetual motion fit in to this?
It would depend I think on the kind of perpetual motion you are talking about. I can imagine a very particular kind of perpetual motion but I can't imagine the usual notion of perpetual motion.
Is the argument that there exists some world where the laws of thermodynamics are different (if any exist in that world) - and as such the machine is logically possible?
That's not imagining. That's conceiving.
Imagining is forming an image of the thing in your mind. I can't imagine a square circle because I'm unable to form the image of a square circle in my mind.
Conceiving involves concepts, i.e. formal expressions. For example, the original notion of the infinite was conceptual, i.e. the infinite as some boundless quantity.
EB

One can have very good logic and still conclude to falsehoods. False conclusions isn't necessarily bad logic.
Still, could you explain precisely how using imagination as proof that something is a logical possibility would affect premises and therefore conclusions from them.
EB

in less than 3000 words ?

Where does a perpetual motion fit in to this? Is the argument that there exists some world where the laws of thermodynamics are different (if any exist in that world) - and as such the machine is logically possible?

perpetual motion is not impossible
logical processing defines perpetual motion as a simple equation
however, ... resistance in a form of energy entropy is a factor that as yet can not be catered for.

what use is a perpetual motion engine that cant move anything else ?
not much
there is lies the lies of the debate around logic and physics.

like the person asking you how you are because they have been conditioned to do so and are not wanting you to tell them how you are.

Is the universe a perpetual motion machine?(Is it square at the edges? )

I
Is it a solipsistic form of logic? Can that exist or is logic by definition** a form of communication?

** rather, "in essence"

or is logic by definition** a form of communication?

** rather, "in essence"

HuGe question !

Logic is a process: a formal process of reasoning. It has no content.
A statement can be tested for logical consistency, but logic cannot be used to test it for factual accuracy.
If I can imagine it, it's logically possible.
This is a statement that can be tested for logical consistency:
- Does/can the logical process validate the possibility of things/ideas?
No, that is not its function.
- Is there any logical correlation between imagination and possibility?
No.
- Are all imaginations equal?
No.
- Does the imagination of the present agent determine the logical possibility of anything?
No.

The statement is nonsensical.

I can imagine a very particular kind of perpetual motion but I can't imagine the usual notion of perpetual motion.
No? What's the problem?

[Magnet at the top pulls the metal ball up the slope. When it gets to the hole, it drops through and returns to the bottom, where it is again attracted to the magnet at the top. etc.]

in less than 3000 words ?
Sure, why not. One could explain General Relativity merely by saying that time and space are replaced by spacetime and that spacetime is curved. And then we can work from there. Human languages are terrific for that. One word can say more than a library.
EB

Is the universe a perpetual motion machine?(Is it square at the edges? )
Yes, that's a subset of this I had in mind. Although not all kinds of universe may apply for it.
EB

Still, I can't imagine why you would say that rationally, so it's not logically possible that you are begin rational here.
Which is permitted here.
EB

Logic is a process: a formal process of reasoning. It has no content.
I would rather say that logic is a capacity of the brain. And then , yes, this capacity is supported by neurological processes. That it is a capacity of the brain is evidenced by the fact that most people are capable of logical thinking.
I think you are confusing logic and formal logic. Formal logic appears invariably as a calculus and as such it's a process. But logic is really something the brain does, and what the brain does is clearly distinct from our formal models precisely because they are formal models.
A statement can be tested for logical consistency, but logic cannot be used to test it for factual accuracy.
Sure, and that's irrelevant here.
This is a statement that can be tested for logical consistency:
- Does/can the logical process validate the possibility of things/ideas?
No, that is not its function.
???
You think logic doesn't determine what logical possibilities there are?!
If not logic, what?!
- Is there any logical correlation between imagination and possibility?
No.
Yes there is.
- Are all imaginations equal?
No.
And?
- Does the imagination of the present agent determine the logical possibility of anything?
No.
Please evidence your claim by providing examples of things you can imagine that are not logical possibilities.
The statement is nonsensical.
You've replied in some details and this is evidence the OP makes sense to you. Though possibly you misunderstood what it says.
EB