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

[Speakpigeon]

If you can imagine it AND communicate it AND realize it. It's possible.

Derail.
I'm not interested in physical possibility.
The OP is specifically on logical possibility.
Try to discipline yourself if you want to be relevant.
If I can imagine it, it's logically possible?
EB

[Logik]

Derail.
I'm not interested in physical possibility.
The OP is specifically on logical possibility.
Try to discipline yourself if you want to be relevant.
If I can imagine it, it's logically possible?

What the fuck are you talking about?

Can imagine something that is PHYSICALLY possible that is not LOGICALLY possible?

I gave you the LOGICAL EQUATION for a "square circle": x^2 + y^2 = z
I have you a PHYSICAL object which satisfies the equation: a cylinder.

If that's not good enough for you, then explain yourself.

What are your exclusionary criteria? Help us understand what you mean by "logical possibility" by juxtaposing it with a "logical impossibility".

[Speakpigeon]

I'm not interested in physical possibility.
The OP is specifically on logical possibility.

What the fuck are you talking about?
Can you think of something that is PHYSICALLY possible but it is not LOGICALLY possible?
Reality doesn't follow logic. Logic follows reality.

You seem to know really very little about anything outside computers. You're like a specialist in Quantum Physics insisting on giving advice to the President of the United States about world affairs.
There are no physical possibilities outside whatever actually is.
Rather very different from logical possibilities, that.
EB

[Logik]

You seem to know really very little about anything outside computers.

Translation: You seem to know very little about anything outside of human minds.
Because that's what computers are. Mathematical models of the human mind.

Yes. I understand how minds work. Therefore I understand how logic works.

You don't.

[Logik]

The rules of logic are the operators that drive operations performed. If you say "P or Q" it is a rule that either P or Q, or both, if true, then the result is true. That is one rule of logic.

It is constructive and constructed. But that alone says nothing about the presence of rules.

The driving of a car on a city street is an action that is constructed and constructive. But there are rules how to drive a car.

You are just your own old self, Logik: contrarian even to the detriment of being right.

Man. Another idealised and over-simplistic perspective on logic. Deconstructing your bullshit is really draining and I am running out of wine.

You already said it yourself. They are operators. Operators are not rules. Operators are arbitrary choices that you make.

IF you CHOOSE "OR", and P =1, Q = 0 then the result is TRUE.
IF you CHOOSE "AND", and P=1, Q=0 then the result is FALSE.
IF you CHOOSE "XOR", and P=1, Q=0 then the result is TRUE
IF you CHOOSE "NAND" and P=1, Q=0, then the result is TRUE.

You have absolutely zero awareness of the descriptive/prescriptive distinction.

The "rules" of logic describe how any particular logic gate works, but if you think the interaction between P and Q should be some other way, then go for it - CHOOSE a different logic gate.

You don't have the logic gate you want/need? Invent it! Nobody can stop you. Invent operators that represent the semantics (meaning!) that you are trying to convey! Call it whatever you want to call it. And if it happens that such a gate already exists, by some name that you didn't already know - who cares?

The distinguishing property of effective rules is that they are meant to REDUCE the number of options available to you.
Like driving cars (which are prescriptive NOT descriptive). Laws against speeding are meant to restrict you from driving 120mph in a residential area.

Rules are meant to limit the number of possible choices you can make.
Logic most definitely doesn't do that! Logic is used for expresses structure. Logic is most definitely not trying to limit you from expressing anything!

How could it? How are you going to stop me from making choices in an abstract field like logic?

I don't like algebra. Fuck it. 1+1 = 3 now. What are you going to do? Send the Grammathematics police after me?

[Logik]

Honey... these are not empty definitions. A two-dimensional figure is two-dimensional, in a three-dimensional space, in a four-dimensional space, and up. Living in a multi-dimensional universe has no effect on the definition of a circle.

No it isn't.

Because Mathematics is idealised and because points are ASSUMED as zero-space/zero-volume entities in geometry. A point is a something that is supposedly nothing. The moment you depart your imagination reality has a different set of ideas.

When you draw a circle on a piece of paper, you have actually drawn two, concentric circles. The radius of the outside circle is <the thickness of your pencil> greater than the inside circle.

A 2-dimensional CONCEPT of a circle realized in 3-dimensional space becomes either a torus or a cylinder. We don't have zero-thickness materials.
So you are forced into a having a 3rd dimension whether you want to or not.

The definitions stand. They are stringent, and if you want to define "circle" in some other way, then you have to give it a name that delineates it from the geometric form defined as "circle".

I HAVE to name it some other way? Says who? You Go fuck yourself.

I use language however I want to and for my own needs and purposes

If you don't like it - send the Grammathematics police to my house.

In addition to being an idealist, you are also a linguistic prescriptivist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription ).

Again, being contrarian is useless if you bang your head against a brick wall. You just keep at it, and then you go into a Narcissistic rage.

Replace "narcissistic rage" with "idealistic rage" and look in the mirror.

There are no such things as circles outside of your mind. Go ahead and show me one.

To end this on a brighter note, now I know that you are an idealist, linguistic prescriptivist who doesn't tolerate inconsistency.
So this interaction has been incredibly useful for me in learning how to program... errr no. Push your buttons.

Yay

[commonsense]

Why are you appealing to dictionaries to speak on your behalf? The dictionary can't read your mind and tell us what you have imagined.
The dictionary is a point of departure - not an authority on meaning.

A shared vocabulary is essential for clear communication.

I didn't need a dictionary to explain to you what I mean by "square circle". I explained it to you with pictures and followed it up with high school Mathematics.
It's just a cylinder whose height is equal to its diameter. I have labeled that object a "square circle" for my own, communicative convenience.

An explanation was necessary because your unique meaning is not contained in a standard dictionary.

"But that's not a square circle!", objected the Sophist.
"OK, but it is what I imagined and it is the concept I am trying to communicate to you, so if it's not a 'square circle' then what would you like to call? How about a 'squirkle' ? ", asked Logik.

Yes, you should have used squirkle instead of square circle from the start.

[Logik]

A shared vocabulary is essential for clear communication.

Yes and no. A shared, general-purpose vocabulary is needed to frame the conversation/debate. Allow two (otherwise strangers) to get on the "same page" so that we have a point of departure. A broad-yet-shared context.

The moment you have to dive deep into the details on any particular issue the English dictionary runs out of words/concepts rather rapidly. Or rather - it's really difficult to find the words I need based on the meaning I intend to communicate. Dictionaries work only one way. From a word you get meaning, but that's not what I need when I am communicating. What I need is something that turns meaning into words.

So... what to do? You invent the language/vocabulary/jargon as needed.

That's literally how and why jargon is born. That's literally how new words are manufactured. We need it -> We create it -> We agree on its meaning.

No dictionary required, just a conversation and shared experience (NOT vocabulary). Something to draw pictures with, maybe? Pen&paper, white board. Sand.

Google images helps too.

An explanation was necessary because your unique meaning is not contained in a standard dictionary.

At least 60% of the phenomena/objects around you (the things you experience day to day) are NOT in the dictionary.
All you have to do is look carefully.

I bet you that in the very room that you are right now you can identify at least 5 things which don't have a "dictionary word".

So what then? You can't speak about them? Just describe them metaphorically!

But do observe your ludicrous expectation. That the dictionary can or should define the meaning of EVERYTHING around you. Even your own thoughts.

That's just batshit crazy!

Yes, you should have used squirkle instead of square circle from the start.

Why? I explained it clearly and concisely. You know damn well what I mean by "square circle"
Furthermore, I used a "squircle" to trick you. The word is already taken. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squircle

And it definitely doesn't mean what I was trying to communicate by "square circle".

I swear. Linguistic prescriptivism is a sickness. Sometimes you really just have to listen.

If you think my use of "square circle" followed by a concise explanation is to be condemned, I can't imagine how you feel about homographs.

[-1-]

At least 60% of the phenomena/objects around you (the things you experience day to day) are NOT in the dictionary.

Name them.

What you claimed, Logic, is equivalent to saying "67% of all quoted statistics are taken from thin air."

I can't find one single solitary thing in my surroundings that I can't name.

Maybe it's the poverty of your vocabulary that compels you to think so? I mean, this ain't an attack on your personality or shortcomings, you yourself claimed something no other normal human would.

And since you are so adamant about the weakness of the language... adfgun erdfjh ajfqa adkj fuh sduaj, ga ah pdh! Aioj gae hh ahe gipuh puhtg.

Prove me wrong.

(Broch chayim dreck shamir vladoyem ghopit! Pfuj.)

[-1-]

The moment you have to dive deep into the details on any particular issue the English dictionary runs out of words/concepts rather rapidly.

You can't draw an extrapolation that all other arguments will be similar to those between you and JohnDoe7.

What you described, Logik, does not happen. You are cherry-picking not facts, but your own obsessive imagination. You are more lucid than JohnDoe7, but essentially you do the same: you believe your own phantasms that you freely quote on the pages of these forums as if they were standard, accepted knowledge.

Whereas they are not. They are easily refutable bullshit.

[-1-]

I use language however I want to and for my own needs and purposes

You're a cat that really is gone.

If you want to use your own language for the purposes no one else comprehends, then you are not using a language. You are using your own schizophrenic world you fucking live alone in, you fucking moron.

[-1-]

Honey... these are not empty definitions. A two-dimensional figure is two-dimensional, in a three-dimensional space, in a four-dimensional space, and up. Living in a multi-dimensional universe has no effect on the definition of a circle.

No it isn't.

Because Mathematics is idealised and because points are ASSUMED as zero-space/zero-volume entities in geometry. A point is a something that is supposedly nothing. The moment you depart your imagination reality has a different set of ideas.

When you draw a circle on a piece of paper, you have actually drawn two, concentric circles. The radius of the outside circle is <the thickness of your pencil> greater than the inside circle.

A 2-dimensional CONCEPT of a circle realized in 3-dimensional space becomes either a torus or a cylinder. We don't have zero-thickness materials.
So you are forced into a having a 3rd dimension whether you want to or not.

The definitions stand. They are stringent, and if you want to define "circle" in some other way, then you have to give it a name that delineates it from the geometric form defined as "circle".

I HAVE to name it some other way? Says who? You Go fuck yourself.

I use language however I want to and for my own needs and purposes

If you don't like it - send the Grammathematics police to my house.

In addition to being an idealist, you are also a linguistic prescriptivist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription ).

Again, being contrarian is useless if you bang your head against a brick wall. You just keep at it, and then you go into a Narcissistic rage.

Replace "narcissistic rage" with "idealistic rage" and look in the mirror.

There are no such things as circles outside of your mind. Go ahead and show me one.

To end this on a brighter note, now I know that you are an idealist, linguistic prescriptivist who doesn't tolerate inconsistency.
So this interaction has been incredibly useful for me in learning how to program... errr no. Push your buttons.

Yay

What is it that you are talking about? You are compeltely crazy. Not a concept, not a word you say makes sense, you are only desperately trying to make your argument work.

You are more than loathsome; now you are becoming pathetic.

I can't believe you are a normal adult living a normal life.

They really should have a rule on this forum and on others, "No cognitively impaired persons are allowed to post." If they had it, you'd disappear, and we would not be bogged down to read your incredibly stupid, but vehemently put arguments.

I'm finished with your due to this series of incredibly stupid and untrue claims by you. Who do you think you are trying to fool? Children?

You are on my "iggi" list. I wish good luck to you in finding some sanity to restore your mind to normal.

[Logik]

At least 60% of the phenomena/objects around you (the things you experience day to day) are NOT in the dictionary.

Name them.

How the fuck am I supposed to name things I don't have words for?!?

I can show you photos.

[Logik]

If you want to use your own language for the purposes no one else comprehends, then you are not using a language. You are using your own schizophrenic world you fucking live alone in, you fucking moron.

I am using language that is understood by computer scientists, mathematicians, physicists, engineers and logicians.
I am using a language that is understood by all the people who gave you "The Internet", who programmed the software which runs this forum.
Your smartphone. Your TV. Your car. The equipment and statistical tests your doctor uses to screen your piss.
I am using a language that any statistician understands.

I am using a language that seems to be understood by majority of the people that run the all the stuff around you that you take for granted.

Just because YOU don't understand it doesn't mean nobody understands it. Moron.
The world doesn't revolve around your understanding (or lack thereof)

[Logik]

I'm finished with your due to this series of incredibly stupid and untrue claims by you. Who do you think you are trying to fool? Children?

I am trying to treat you like an adult. But you continue to behave like an intellectual child.

You continue to fool yourself...

You are on my "iggi" list. I wish good luck to you in finding some sanity to restore your mind to normal.

Good luck! My sanity is in check. Thank you for your concern.

Enjoy your the simplistic, idealised ignoramus life. It seems you have found religio.. err. no "Truth"

For the rest of you watching. Notice how Mr -1- failed to show evidence for the existence of circles.

Because he can't. Circles are impossible in a 3 dimensional universe.