• Troodon Roar
    18
    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)?
  • CaZaNOx
    68
    that such an entity is theoretically logically possible, and therefore, even though I cannot imagine it,Troodon Roar
    How do you understand imagine in this context? Being able to visually represent it?
    Why does "imagining" it as logical theoretical option not count? What is the difference and what is your actual point if someone would agree? Like is it an independent conclusion or do you want to use in further?
  • I like sushi
    4.8k
    If you’ve not read Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason” already then I’d HIGHLY recommend you take on the challenge.

    Mereology is certainly an idea that holds my attention.

    It is also worth noting that some (maybe all) people are capable of “seeing sounds,” and even “tasting colours”. That said it is impossible to imagine a sound without pitch or a shape without dimensions - you cannot remove parts of the underlying definition and expect the same meaning to remain.
  • SethRy
    152
    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?Troodon Roar

    I guess I would. As a full-on, practicing theist, I will constantly argue that the intrinsic essential and accidental characteristics of God, which I presume, are undefinable. What we know of God, is approximate, driven from assumptions that still abide to societal, ideological, and logical principles; that could still surprisingly, adhere to a phenomenal god, God.

    (the space of logically possible entities or possible worlds, as philosophers talk about)?Troodon Roar

    Although as it seems, God may not be perceivable even if the entire universe was examined, that its infinite concept was studied and conceptualized. There is always the presence of that monotony that God would show evident to you if you accept him — which unsurprisingly, does not convince everybody. So possibly no, God cannot be perceivable in logical prepositions, yet God is omnipresent. An unperceivable existence does not imply a nonexistence.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    "Logical space" is something we imagine, so the question is itself contradictory.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Anything that is not established as "impossible"...is, at very least, "possible."

    Human imagination does not even come into play with that.
  • Devans99
    2.7k
    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.Troodon Roar

    I'm have the opinion that only logical thinks can exist. What does it mean to be illogical? The definition of logic is:

    'reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity'

    'Only valid things can exist' seems reasonable statement. Valid according to certain common sense axioms though. Personally I adopt the 'no magic allowed' axiom which rules out things like infinity from featuring in reality.

    Also, if you think about logic, it is information processing. What is absence of logic? It could be that is the absence of true and false. IE the absence of a way to tell one thing from another; IE an absence of information. So you could think about absence of logic as absence of information and if there is no information, nothing can exist. The very existence of information implies a way to differentiate that information implies logic. Nothing can exist without information so everything must be logical.

    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.Troodon Roar

    Agreed but a 16D space is a logical concept. Infinity is not a logical concept. So we can have a 16D universe but not an infinite universe IMO.

    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)?Troodon Roar

    Theoretically possible - yes - as long as it follows the rules of logic (with a few common sense axioms).
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.