I argue here that there may very well be many things, infinite things, in fact, that are logically possible, and thus exist in the realm of logically possible entities, or logical space, but are unimaginable by humans.

For example, humans cannot imagine what a sixteen-dimensional space would look like, but it can still be described theoretically, and there is nothing logically contradictory about it. Therefore, it exists in logical space, regardless of the limits of the human imagination when it comes to imagining it.

To give another example, there is a fascinating paper recently published in a philosophical journal titled “The nonclassical mereology of olfactory experiences” which states that the type of part-whole relation that odors exemplify is different from that which visual entities exemplify. In other words, when it comes to odors, it is not necessarily true that the weak supplementation principle (which states that an object cannot have one proper part) is satisfied. I recommend reading that paper.

So, if even something as basic as the dichotomy between simples and composite entities can be disrupted by paying more attention to non-visual sensory modalities, this has led me to think…

We should never underestimate the variety of things that may exist. There may be many things that are unimaginable to a human mind, but which still, nevertheless, are logically possible, and thus could exist.

Take a sound and a spatial object, like a rock. They are about as different as any two things that a human can experience could be. The sound is non-spatial, whereas the rock is spatial. That’s a huge difference.

Now what if I told you there were some entity out there that was very different from both of them, and equally different from both of them? That is, it is very different from both the sound and the rock, but is no more similar to one than to the other. And it is as different from the rock as the sound is from it, and also as different from the sound as the rock is from it.

Such an entity seems logically possible to me, but it seems beyond the human mind’s ability to imagine it. Someone could bring up sounds and tastes, but they seem more similar to the smell than to the rock to me. I mean something that is as different from the rock as it is from the smell, and as different from the smell as it is from the rock. And it is very, very different from both, so different that the only properties it has in common with either the rock or the smell are trivial properties shared by anything, such as self-identity, and negative properties, such as “this thing, the rock, and the smell all share the property of not being Barack Obama.”

Does anyone else here agree with me that such an entity is theoretically logically possible, and therefore, even though I cannot imagine it, the fact that I can describe it with language shows that it, nevertheless, exists somewhere in logical space (the space of logically possible entities or possible worlds, as philosophers talk about)?