Why do some ppl say "Nothing is impossible, just improbable"?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

That doesn't count. There's no evidene that wormholes are possible either.

MrGeezer

When discussing strict impossibilities, the burden of proof is on the one asserting impossibility, who must show that the existence of the allegedly impossible phenomenon would create a contradiction with certain things assumed to be true about the world. The old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a cop-out in this case.

The thing is...I didn't say that wormholes were impossible.

Instead, YOU used wormholes as a possible means of debunking someone else's claims of the impossible.

I didn't say that ANYTHING was impossible or impossible. Instead, you decided to invoke wormholes and I pointed out that there's no evidence trhat they are possible.

It was suggested that it was impossible for a child to survive a shotgun blast to the face. I proposed that as a means by which it would be possible. The burden is then on the one claiming impossibility to demonstrate why what I have described is impossible, thus maintaining the impossibility of the action described. Simply by virtue of having described the scenario, I have produced enough to establish possibility, which is all that I need to do; it is now up to the original proposer to rebut this scenario by explaining why it is in fact impossible and therefore not an establishment of possibility.

As described before, "impossibility" is an extremely high hurdle to overcome, and this is precisely why. Something is impossible if and only if every universe in which it appears is internally inconsistent. If there is even one universe in which it appears that is internally consistent, then it is by definition possible.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

When discussing strict impossibilities, the burden of proof is on the one asserting impossibility, who must show that the existence of the allegedly impossible phenomenon would create a contradiction with certain things assumed to be true about the world. The old "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is not a cop-out in this case.

GabuEx

The thing is...I didn't say that wormholes were impossible.

Instead, YOU used wormholes as a possible means of debunking someone else's claims of the impossible.

I didn't say that ANYTHING was impossible or impossible. Instead, you decided to invoke wormholes and I pointed out that there's no evidence trhat they are possible.

It was suggested that it was impossible for a child to survive a shotgun blast to the face. I proposed that as a means by which it would be possible. The burden is then on the one claiming impossibility to demonstrate why what I have described is impossible, thus maintaining the impossibility of the action described. Simply by virtue of having described the scenario, I have produced enough to establish possibility, which is all that I need to do; it is now up to the original proposer to rebut this scenario by explaining why it is in fact impossible and therefore not an establishment of possibility.

As described before, "impossibility" is an extremely high hurdle to overcome, and this is precisely why. Something is impossible if and only if every universe in which it appears is internally inconsistent. If there is even one universe in which it appears that is internally consistent, then it is by definition possible.

Yeah but...you still haven't established that the "possible" means of surviving the shotgun blast is actually "possible".

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

The thing is...I didn't say that wormholes were impossible.

Instead, YOU used wormholes as a possible means of debunking someone else's claims of the impossible.

I didn't say that ANYTHING was impossible or impossible. Instead, you decided to invoke wormholes and I pointed out that there's no evidence trhat they are possible.

MrGeezer

It was suggested that it was impossible for a child to survive a shotgun blast to the face. I proposed that as a means by which it would be possible. The burden is then on the one claiming impossibility to demonstrate why what I have described is impossible, thus maintaining the impossibility of the action described. Simply by virtue of having described the scenario, I have produced enough to establish possibility, which is all that I need to do; it is now up to the original proposer to rebut this scenario by explaining why it is in fact impossible and therefore not an establishment of possibility.

As described before, "impossibility" is an extremely high hurdle to overcome, and this is precisely why. Something is impossible if and only if every universe in which it appears is internally inconsistent. If there is even one universe in which it appears that is internally consistent, then it is by definition possible.

Yeah but...you still haven't established that the "possible" means of surviving the shotgun blast is actually "possible".

I don't need to. It's up to the person proposing the impossibility of the shotgun blast survival to also establish the impossibility of the wormhole used in the solution. Saying that something is impossible is equivalent to saying that all means by which it may be made possible are also impossible. Therefore, the person saying that it is impossible must also establish the impossibility of all hypothetical means by which it may be made possible. Technically speaking, I didn't need to even respond other than to point out that the person has not presented any proof that the alleged impossibility is in fact an impossibility; I simply did so to outline one single possible means by which it might be made possible for illustrative purposes.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

It was suggested that it was impossible for a child to survive a shotgun blast to the face. I proposed that as a means by which it would be possible. The burden is then on the one claiming impossibility to demonstrate why what I have described is impossible, thus maintaining the impossibility of the action described. Simply by virtue of having described the scenario, I have produced enough to establish possibility, which is all that I need to do; it is now up to the original proposer to rebut this scenario by explaining why it is in fact impossible and therefore not an establishment of possibility.

As described before, "impossibility" is an extremely high hurdle to overcome, and this is precisely why. Something is impossible if and only if every universe in which it appears is internally inconsistent. If there is even one universe in which it appears that is internally consistent, then it is by definition possible.

GabuEx

Yeah but...you still haven't established that the "possible" means of surviving the shotgun blast is actually "possible".

I don't need to. It's up to the person proposing the impossibility of the shotgun blast survival to also establish the impossibility of the wormhole used in the solution. Saying that something is impossible is equivalent to saying that all means by which it may be made possible are also impossible. Therefore, the person saying that it is impossible must also establish the impossibility of all hypothetical means by which it may be made possible.

Which really doesn't have anything to do with me.

I'm not the one saying that it was impossible to survive the shotgun blast, instead I saw someone else say that it IS possible without establishing any verification of that.

I could equally well jump on him for saying that surviving the shotgun blast is impossible. It's just that...I chose not to. I chose to fixate on your comments instead. That may be biased and unfair, but what the other dude said doesn't really have anything to do with ME. I'm not talking about what he said, I'm talking about what YOU said.

[QUOTE="funsohng"]Because most of the people do not take these sayings literally, but rather take what they actually mean.DudeNtheRoom

Its meant to be inspirational, not literal.

A kid living in the ghetto who wants to be president some day can take that saying to heart

A scientist who thinks humans will grow wings and fly in his lifetime should not

Well, faster than light travel is impossible, so it should be

"most stuff isn't impossible, just improbable"

Doesn't have the same ring to it

"Impossible is a word the weak use to justify failure"

Shad0ki11

"Quotations of famous people that generalize a view on life marginalize the complexity of situations and life"

Its bc anything we think is impossible today might just be possible in the years to come. Which makes improbable not impossible. We're always learning new thing about the universe n our planet, that change or way of thinking whats possible.

Let's leave the old threads where they belong--dead and buried.