Someone here

Does infinity include logical impossibilities?

60 posts in this topic

In another thread I was having a conversation with @Vibroverse about infinity and the concept of logical impossibilities. I understand (theoretically at least) that reality is infinite.  Not just that the universe stretches out infinitely in all directions or that time has no beginning or end . But infinte in all possible ways imaginable or unimaginable.....But does that include that infinity contains logical impossibilities?

A logically impossible thing is a thing that  cannot exist by definition because its definition contains a contradiction.

squares that are also circles, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite. Or is that also included in absolute infinity? 

 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When we look at the quantum realm, we see things like that, for instance we can be talking about, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time. Now it is quite a logical impossibility, but in that interpretation, like the idea of Kant about what he calls the noumena, there is a dimension of reality where a logical impossibility, a man both standing and sitting at the same time, for instance, can exist. 

That interpretation of quantum mechanics is pretty Kantian, in the sense that we can have no idea about the noumena for it might very well be beyond our human comprehension and perception, and so we are dealing with the phenomena that are within the realm of our comprehension and perception. 

Now it is pretty mindfuck beyond description when you think about it, because putting some limits to the infiniteness of infinity seems pretty random, in a sense, but at the same time there is something like a perceptual capacity of ours and the mode of being of ours. 

I feel like it is like the point where to parallel lines touch each other in the infinity, but it both exists and can never exist at the same time, so it might be like the ground of existence that can never find itself, in a sense, and it is like the point where the logic is looking for itself, and it is quite a mindfuck, yeah ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

When we look at the quantum realm, we see things like that, for instance we can be talking about, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time. Now it is quite a logical impossibility, but in that interpretation, like the idea of Kant about what he calls the noumena, there is a dimension of reality where a logical impossibility, a man both standing and sitting at the same time, for instance, can exist. 

That interpretation of quantum mechanics is pretty Kantian, in the sense that we can have no idea about the noumena for it might very well be beyond our human comprehension and perception, and so we are dealing with the phenomena that are within the realm of our comprehension and perception. 

Now it is pretty mindfuck beyond description when you think about it, because putting some limits to the infiniteness of infinity seems pretty random, in a sense, but at the same time there is something like a perceptual capacity of ours and the mode of being of ours. 

I feel like it is like the point where to parallel lines touch each other in the infinity, but it both exists and can never exist at the same time, so it might be like the ground of existence that can never find itself, in a sense, and it is like the point where the logic is looking for itself, and it is quite a mindfuck, yeah ?

Kant was wrong about noumena. There is no external objective world behind the scenes. All you have is the first order. The field of consciousness that you are experiencing right now .that's all that exists .

I think you have to look at this in reverse, otherwise, it will result in an inconsistency in meaning/semantics. Here's why:

1) If x can happen, then x is hypothetically possible. If x can't happen, then x is hypothetically impossible. Agreed?

2) x can only happen if the potential exists for it to happen. If the potential does not exist for it to happen, then x is not hypothetically possible. It is hypothetically impossible. Agreed?

3) A finite existence cannot make all xs possible because a finite existence's potential, is finite. So, either we say:

3a) Not all possibilities are truly possible (which is as semantically inconsistent as saying not all triangles are truly triangles)
3b) All possibilities truly are possible (which is semantically consistent)

Summary: There are no alternatives to 3a and 3b. 3a is contradictory. 3b semantically/logically requires Existence to be Infinite.

Note that there is a difference between an unknown and a possibility which I believe is often grossly overlooked .I will attempt to highlight this:

Whether or not there are unicorns in our galaxy is an unknown. Whether there will be unicorns in the future of our galaxy, again is unknown. Whether there can be unicorns in the future, is certainly yes. It is not an unknown. Whether or not beings with a 10th sense can exist in Existence, is an unknown. As in we don't know if Existence has the potential to produce a being with a 10th sense.

So when i say it's possible that a being with a 10th sense is possible, I am in fact saying, 'it's unknown whether Existence is such that a being with a 10th sense is possible or not.


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All logic starts with the law of identity ("a thing is itself, as distinct from something else"). Ascribing or projecting onto something an identity, ascribes it finitude. So infinity is already beyond the realm of logic.

As all identities and all logic are fundamentally projections, a logical impossibility just describes a type of negation of those projections. Infinity doesn't intrinsically negate the projections per se. It just doesn't limit itself to such projections.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, let's approach this question in a different way because there obviously are many underlying assumptions going on within consciousness. First of all, perhaps, we need to start with understanding what definitions are, and we are trying to say a definition can be other than itself at the same time, right? So, if the definition is other than itself, then by definition it is not itself. 

And if the essence of a meaning and concept is by definition itself and also a representative of itself, and that actually is what I mean when I say noumena, then it definitely can experience itself in the modes of impossibilities also, but of course, our question is whether those impossibilities are the same mode of impossibilities or not, mhm. 

For instance, when we say "oh it is not possible for me to date that woman" and "it is not possible for me to create a square circle", are we actually, from the metaphysical level, talking about the same sort of a thing or not. One of the differences seems to be that you can imagine dating that girl in your mind, but you cannot even imagine a square circle in your mind. 

But then the question is "then can it be about understanding the nature of what we can imagine and what we cannot?". Is there a deeper mechanism, in a sense, that applies to all forms of imagination in their own respective modalities, or is there objects that are just impossible to imagine by their own nature in themselves, and now that's a good question to ask. 

Then we can talk about the nature of logic, and that's the weird point, because you then get stuck in a question of possibilities where whether it is ever possible or not, where you're asking to yourself whether it is ever a real point that can exist within itself or not, or whether it is like, in a sense, the limit of existence, like, the boundary, in a sense, of existence where it can allow itself to experience itself. 

However, when you get to the point where experience is experiencing the limit of itself, then you have some weird problems, and then the question is whether it is the question itself that is the question, or whether it can be a subset of a greater existential question where it is, for some reason, a weird part of itself, and maybe, in that sense, what we are searching for is the understanding of the very understanding of the structure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

All logic starts with the law of identity ("a thing is itself, as distinct from something else"). Ascribing or projecting onto something an identity, ascribes it finitude. So infinity is already beyond the realm of logic.

As all identities and all logic are fundamentally projections, a logical impossibility just describes a type of negation of those projections. Infinity doesn't intrinsically negate the projections per se. It just doesn't limit itself to dealing with such projections.

So you are saying infinity does include what we call logical impossibilities because its our finite minds that's ascribing the notion of "impossibility " onto a concept or a phenomenon?

Or that God has infinite attributes and none of those attributes is impossible for God. God defines what is possible and what is impossible. If God transcends His attributes then His attributes do not define Him. If God is defined by His attributes then it is finite. And since God is infinite, it doesn't depend on its attributes like logical possibilities? ⁷


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

For instance, when we say "oh it is not possible for me to date that woman" and "it is not possible for me to create a square circle", are we actually, from the metaphysical level, talking about the same sort of a thing or not. One of the differences seems to be that you can imagine dating that girl in your mind, but you cannot even imagine a square circle in your mind. 

But then the question is "then can it be about understanding the nature of what we can imagine and what we cannot?". Is there a deeper mechanism, in a sense, that applies to all forms of imagination in their own respective modalities, or is there objects that are just impossible to imagine by their own nature in themselves, and now that's a good question to ask. 

I guess I get this . When we are judging something as logically impossible we are using our finite mind's capacity to imagine. And that definitely has limitations. We can't imagine anything we want .our imagination is actually limited by what we already have experienced in the real world. 

But to infinite consciousness itself prior to the creation of this particular universe including our limited imagination..to that there Is no constraints whatsoever. It can create a square that is also a circle. If we deny that then we are basically claiming that reality is finite .but that can't be .therefore logical impossibilities are paradoxially possible with absolute infinity. 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Someone here Yes. For example, for something to exist, it must have had a beginning. Existence is therefore utterly impossible, but here it is.


Apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, axiom said:

@Someone here Yes. For example, for something to exist, it must have had a beginning. Existence is therefore utterly impossible, but here it is.

I remember Leo saying in one of his posts in the forum a time ago "infinity is the impossible made possible ".

I think it is contradictory for a finite existence to have an infinite amount of potential. So a finite existence will not account for why have access to an infinity of things. 

Though existence being absolutely infinite it must contain absolutely everything.  

The point that is tripping me up ..is whether infinity contains everything that's possible..or EVERYTHING. period (meaning even what we consider with our limited minds to be impossible or unimaginable).


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Yes, absolutely!

 

I watched that video about strange loops .one of Leo's best videos .

However, I'm curious to understand how do you link the concert of strange loops with what I call logical impossibilities? 

Because you only have two choices:

You either believe Existence to be finite, or you believe it to be Infinite. There are no other possible beliefs about Existence. Existence being finite is clearly contradictory. It amounts to the contradiction of existence coming from non-existence, or non-existence having existed, or non-existence existing. A finite existence is contradictory, therefore Existence is infinite.

Yet how can it be infinite If something like a square circle cannot exist in it ? You see there is a problem with both perspectives (whether existence is finite or infinite ).


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All squares are circles.

It depends on who / what is looking. 
 


Apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I watched that video about strange loops .one of Leo's best videos .

However, I'm curious to understand how do you link the concert of strange loops with what I call logical impossibilities? 

Because you only have two choices:

You either believe Existence to be finite, or you believe it to be Infinite. There are no other possible beliefs about Existence. Existence being finite is clearly contradictory. It amounts to the contradiction of existence coming from non-existence, or non-existence having existed, or non-existence existing. A finite existence is contradictory, therefore Existence is infinite.

Yet how can it be infinite If something like a square circle cannot exist in it ? You see there is a problem with both perspectives (whether existence is finite or infinite ).

The point of the whole inquiry is to give up trying to grasp reality with the mind. Reality is impossible, and yet here it is. Deal with it, mind. Though, I don't recommend that xD

Infinite or finite is irrelevant because they're products of the mind, so they're finite by definition. The thought "infinity" is not reality. It's a thought, an example of reality, but not it (not reality), cuz it's itself.

So ultimately, "infinity" becomes just a label that refers to actuality. Thoughts/Labels refer to experiences/actuality. Is your experience infinite or finite? Or is it both or neither?


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

The point of the whole inquiry is to give up trying to grasp reality with the mind. Reality is impossible, and yet here it is. Deal with it, mind. Though, I don't recommend that xD

Infinite or finite is irrelevant because they're products of the mind, so they're finite by definition. The thought "infinity" is not reality. It's a thought, an example of reality, but not it (not reality), cuz it's itself.

So ultimately, "infinity" becomes just a label that refers to actuality. Thoughts/Labels refer to experiences/actuality. Is your experience infinite or finite? Or is it both or neither?

I know that fundamentally these kinds of inquiries are fruitless . Yet I don't consider them to be a waste of time.  I'm a big believer in "mental pleasure ". Philosophising to me gives me a high state ?

 Existence is not a matter of hypothetical possibility. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. We cannot deny this. So all attributes of Existence are necessarily at least as real as you and me. So an Omnipresent thing/being (Existence) is necessarily at least as real as you and me.

To reject Existence as being Omnipresent, Infinite, and Perfect, leads to semantical inconsistencies as highlighted in the OP. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. Unicorns are not necessarily at least as real as you and me. But given the infiniteness of Existence, unicorns can come to be at least as real as you and me. Again the reason why x is hypothetically impossible (semantically inconsistent) is because Existence does not accommodate it. If x is semantically consistent, then necessarily, Existence accommodates it.

As for my direct experience..it's both infinte and finite at the same time . Its finite in the sense that I can't fly or perform miracles. But it's infinite in the sense that if I tried to catch the beginning and ending of my experience (whether in terms of space or in terms of time) I can't actually find a clear boundary. 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The closest we've got to this understanding is by the quantum physics, I guess, as I said before, where we are talking about a frickin cat that is both dead and alive at the same time, where something is itself and not itself at the same time, but when we try to capture how it does this, when we measure it, we cannot see how it does that. 

Now I'm not talking about whether consciousness is collapsing the wavefunction etc, it's not my point. Whatever it is that collapses the wavefunction, the situation is the same, we cannot see the particle in the state where it both is and is not. And I think it might be happening because that's the point which our perception cannot comprehend and perceive even if it might be existing in some weird "dimension". 

We cannot perceive the wavefunction in itself, but we perceive the possibility of it where it either is or isn't, we cannot see the state where it is both if it exists, and yeah, in some weird sense it might exist, but it wouldn't mean anything for us, I guess.

I think that itself is a pretty strong point in explaining the importance of consciousness in the equation, because surprise surprise, we, for some weird reason, cannot see the state of the equation where it cannot click to our perceptual capacities, but it's a whole another subject. 

And turning back to your question, I think there is nothing consciousness cannot become, including the "things" that are logically impossible for us, for things are the concepts which we perceive through our perceptual capacities, and perception might be the definition of itself, in a sense, if you know what I mean. 

So if existence is itself, coming from and causing itself, in a sense, then, yeah, that perspective might hold, but again, the interesting thing here, I guess, is the nature of thought and imagination, the importance of the idea of state of being in the equation, and, I guess, that's a very important point, a very very important point, in a sense, which is being, for some reason, ignored by logicians and philosophers. 

The ancient philosophers and idealist philosophers, of course, to some extent, understand the importance of intuition, or the underlying state of being, in creating their philosophies, by talking about the importance of love and tranquility etc to some extent, but I think we need a way of philosophizing which defines itself as a combination, in a sense, of heart and mind, of intuition and reason, for it to work well. 

But, of course, that also is a fine line that can totally lose reason and, in a sense, turn into woo woo, but philosophy without being based on a true state of intelligence also is dry and repetitive and not insightful. And, by the way, whether we are aware of it or not, it already is how it is, in my opinion, but if we may become conscious about it, it may be helpful. 

Edited by Vibroverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Someone here said:

So you are saying infinity does include what we call logical impossibilities because its our finite minds that's ascribing the notion of "impossibility " onto a concept or a phenomenon?

Or that God has infinite attributes and none of those attributes is impossible for God. God defines what is possible and what is impossible. If God transcends His attributes then His attributes do not define Him. If God is defined by His attributes then it is finite. And since God is infinite, it doesn't depend on its attributes like logical possibilities? ⁷

Remember that logic is just logical reasoning; mind activity. It deals with limited identities which are projected onto reality by your logical human mind. A logical impossibility would just be a contradiction to that process. Reality as it is in itself has an unlimited identity, and it's not a projection of your logical human mind.

As a bit of a side point, if you want to call other aspects of reality a projection of your human mind, then that projection goes much deeper (e.g. on the level of perceptual structures instead of higher cognitive structures). Logical reasoning is a very abstract mind activity, and it's certainly not fundamental to reality.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Someone here said:

I know that fundamentally these kinds of inquiries are fruitless . Yet I don't consider them to be a waste of time.  I'm a big believer in "mental pleasure ". Philosophising to me gives me a high state ?

Yeah, they're not fruitless. These inquiries are "the work" in a sense. I'm just pointing to the next step.

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

To reject Existence as being Omnipresent, Infinite, and Perfect, leads to semantical inconsistencies as highlighted in the OP.

Rejection does not reflect onto existence. It does not affect it in the slightest, which is what makes existence absolute. Rejection can only happening within the mind. And whatever the mind says is irrelevant to existence itself, because it's just a reference/image/pointer, and therefore not representative of the real thing.

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. Unicorns are not necessarily at least as real as you and me. But given the infiniteness of Existence, unicorns can come to be at least as real as you and me. Again the reason why x is hypothetically impossible (semantically inconsistent) is because Existence does not accommodate it. If x is semantically consistent, then necessarily, Existence accommodates it.

Yeah, but here you're making it seem like the mind/logic is primary and existence is secondary. If my logic is correct, then existence should be the same as my logic. Kind of backwards, if you ask me.

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

As for my direct experience..it's both infinte and finite at the same time . Its finite in the sense that I can't fly or perform miracles. But it's infinite in the sense that if I tried to catch the beginning and ending of my experience (whether in terms of space or in terms of time) I can't actually find a clear boundary. 

Then what's left for you to realize is the "neither" part.


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vibroverse said:

The closest we've got to this understanding is by the quantum physics, I guess, as I said before, where we are talking about a frickin cat that is both dead and alive at the same time, where something is itself and not itself at the same time, but when we try to capture how it does this, when we measure it, we cannot see how it does that. 

Now I'm not talking about whether consciousness is collapsing the wavefunction etc, it's not my point. Whatever it is that collapses the wavefunction, the situation is the same, we cannot see the particle in the state where it both is and is not. And I think it might be happening because that's the point which our perception cannot comprehend and perceive even if it might be existing in some weird "dimension". 

We cannot perceive the wavefunction in itself, but we perceive the possibility of it where it either is or isn't, we cannot see the state where it is both if it exists, and yeah, in some weird sense it might exist, but it wouldn't mean anything for us, I guess.

I think that itself is a pretty strong point in explaining the importance of consciousness in the equation, because surprise surprise, we, for some weird reason, cannot see the state of the equation where it cannot click to our perceptual capacities, but it's a whole another subject. 

And turning back to your question, I think there is nothing consciousness cannot become, including the "things" that are logically impossible for us, for things are the concepts which we perceive through our perceptual capacities, and perception might be the definition of itself, in a sense, if you know what I mean. 

So if existence is itself, coming from and causing itself, in a sense, then, yeah, that perspective might hold, but again, the interesting thing here, I guess, is the nature of thought and imagination, the importance of the idea of state of being in the equation, and, I guess, that's a very important point, a very very important point, in a sense, which is being, for some reason, ignored by logicians and philosophers. 

The ancient philosophers and idealist philosophers, of course, to some extent, understand the importance of intuition, or the underlying state of being, in creating their philosophies, by talking about the importance of love and tranquility etc to some extent, but I think we need a way of philosophizing which defines itself as a combination, in a sense, of heart and mind, of intuition and reason, for it to work well. 

But, of course, that also is a fine line that can totally lose reason and, in a sense, turn into woo woo, but philosophy without being based on a true state of intelligence also is dry and repetitive and not insightful. And, by the way, whether we are aware of it or not, it already is how it is, in my opinion, but if we may become conscious about it, it may be helpful. 

For me, unlike physical and metaphysical impossibilities, logical impossibility relies on human beings’ incapability to conceive  and its negation together. If you consider inconceivability as impossibility, then you have an answer. But if you take impossibility apart from the human ability to conceive, question remains as a considerably stronger one. 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Remember that logic is just logical reasoning; mind activity. It deals with limited identities which are projected onto reality by your logical human mind. A logical impossibility would just be a contradiction to that process. Reality as it is in itself has an unlimited identity, and it's not a projection of your logical human mind.

As a bit of a side point, if you want to call other aspects of reality a projection of your human mind, then that projection goes much deeper (e.g. on the level of perceptual structures instead of higher cognitive structures). Logical reasoning is a very abstract mind activity, and it's certainly not fundamental to reality.

So reality ,being infinite and unlimited, usese logic as a subset of itself to create pseudo impossibilities?

So It produces those limitations but it itself is not bound by its creation (the logical rules )?

I think a typical analysis of this problem is that logical impossibility is simply non-sense, and thus cannot be made “real” in physical terms in the first place.

Example: If I say “The snow is frozen and the snow is not frozen” I haven’t put forward anything profound. I have just spoken jibberish. The proposition “A and notA” is logically impossible and cannot be made sense of.

The omnipotence paradox, such as “Could God create a rock to heavy for God to lift.” is often analyzed as a logical impossibility. God cannot fulfill logical impossibilities not because God is not powerful enough, but because logical impossibilities aren’t stating any sort of state of affairs. They’re just jibberish.

This is not to say that the omnipotence paradox must be analyzed this way, but it is a traditional way given the issue of logical v. physical impossibility.

Edited by Someone here

"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Yeah, but here you're making it seem like the mind/logic is primary and existence is secondary. If my logic is correct, then existence should be the same as my logic. Kind of backwards, if you ask me

You are correct .existence is more fundamental than logic. You can't have logic without existence. But you can have existence without logic .and that's exactly what I'm talking about. "Existence without logic ".which means something illogical can exist. Because I think the key insight here is that infinity is prior to logic. Nothing governs infinity from outside .both in a literal and figurative sense. So reality ends up being absolutely infinite. And what we consider to be "logically impossible "is only so from our limited narrow perspective .which isn't all encompassing. 


"life is not a problem to be solved ..its a mystery to be lived "

-Osho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now