To all: Does conceivability entail the logical possibility of Superman?

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T23:46:33.942269+00:00

Huh. Hadn't thought of that. Is a 0 dimensional reality logically possible, though?

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T21:50:44.521061+00:00

Let me see if I can break it down, although I have to admit I've done a mediocre job of it so far.

As presented and conceived of, Superman is a super-powered alien on a basically Earth-like world, one which would have had to arise from physical laws similar to our own. As far as I can tell, he and the world that defines him (Daily Planet, Lois Lane, newspapers, automobiles, airplanes, fossil fuels, etc... In other words, something fairly close to Earth) are incompatible with each other. We can change the world so that he doesn't violate its laws anymore, but those changes -- especially to the laws of thermodynamics -- would seem to preclude the existence of the world he's defined as inhabiting. Or we can change him so that he has access to some sort of unbelievably rich power source instead of being solar powered, but that would be changing the definition of Superman even more.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T21:22:07.550747+00:00

My central thesis is that physical impossibility actually entails logical impossibility, and that conceivability does not entail logical possibility. I don't think Superman actually is logically possible.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T21:19:26.684325+00:00

Here's the thing... Regardless of pre- or post-Crisis, Superman lives in a world that consistently resembles ours -- if not in all respects, then at least in ones that generally point to a similar set of physical laws. There are cars that run on fossil fuel. There is oxygen, nitrogen, plants that perform photosynthesis, hydrogen-majority stars, and many other things that point to a universe Superman would be violating the laws of.

I'm having trouble coming up with ways to reconcile them, although I will concede that may be a failure on the part of my imagination, rather than logic. But at least so far, I can only think of solutions that redefine Superman:

We can change the laws of nature such that Superman's existence violates none of them, but those changes seem to preclude the sort of space-time that could give rise to planets and suns. He is now a being existing in a universe, but he isn't Superman existing in an approximation of our universe.
We can change Superman so he is no longer solar powered, but receives some sort of energy from another source. That blatantly changes the definition of Superman. It's no more valid than changing the definition of "square" to "a shape consisting of points in a plane that are equidistant from the center" so that you can declare square circles logically possible.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T20:28:27.131576+00:00

Thanks. Oh well.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T19:54:30.515846+00:00

This strays pretty far from anything related to God, though. As I've stated elsewhere, I think the best line of attack is to show that our powers of conception are not limited to the logically possible.

This was an attempt at that, actually. I figured Superman being conceivable, but not logically possible, would be the counter-example necessary to overthrow the assumption that conceivability entails logical possibility. I suppose I'm not arguing it very well, though. Oh well.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T19:51:55.881179+00:00

Yes, I've seen that before. In this case, I was trying to get to exactly why the argument is unsound. I'm rejecting the very premise that conceivability necessarily entails logical possibility. I think that particular assumption is what leads to the mutually contradictory arguments you're describing.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T19:48:29.942601+00:00

Read it. It is an incredible example of the whole "unnoticeable" idea.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T19:46:14.820993+00:00

Consider what Superman is: An alien living on Earth. He is conceived of as a being who lives in a world whose physical laws are consistent enough with ours to generate Earth, the Sun, gravity (which he famously defies), momentum, electricity, newspapers, Lois Lane, the speed of light (which he famously can reach), and so on. Alter the world enough to create the conditions in which a gravity-defying, energy-generating, speed-enhanced entity could logically exist, and you take away the elements that comprise integral components of our conception of Superman. It stops being Superman.

What I'm saying is that Superman is logically inconsistent with the very context that defines him. He isn't Superman without his powers, he isn't Superman without that world, and the powers and world aren't compatible.

Sure, I can build upon Superman and his world in ways to make it all fit somehow, but I can't do it without fundamentally altering the pre-existing conception of him. In other words, as he is usually conceived of, he is both physically and logically impossible.

And I reject changing his definition in that manner in the same way I'd reject anyone redefining the word "triangle" so it could logically be the same as a square.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:53:07.160535+00:00

Heh. I'll see what I can work up for that. But Superman's context is important to our conceptions of him. Sure, I can conceive of a being that is capable of defying gravity and great feats of strength, and a universe in which that being could logically exist, but that being is definitely not Superman.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:49:30.862643+00:00

I'd contend that energy in being at least equal to energy out is itself reducible to pure math, which is where the "3>12" came from. But as I've said elsewhere, even if we do accept the logical possibility that there is a universe where this is not so, we end up with a universe that is incompatible with the definition of Superman as an alien hero who comes to Earth, works at a newspaper, and frequently rescues Lois Lane.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:45:15.157771+00:00

Oh, hadn't even thought of it that way. Nice.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:43:59.097565+00:00

And speaking of unnoticeability, have you read The City and the City, by China Miéville?

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:42:32.647627+00:00

Oh, nice loophole. I was thinking of invisibility as being contradictory to pinkness, as pinkness requires light to be bouncing off something. But if they're just unnoticeable, that's a completely different ball of invisible pink wax!

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:40:29.269724+00:00

But, I take your point. If you root your definition of Superman to a particular universe, you can conceive of things that are logically impossible in that universe because it turns out you weren't thinking it all the way through. "Conception" is incomplete.

Bingo! And what would Superman be in a world that doesn't otherwise behave like Earth, with gravity for him to defy, Lois Lane for him to rescue, and the Daily Planet for him to work at? Redefine the world, and it redefines him.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:37:27.997664+00:00

Conceivability is a short cut test that should formally be a non-contradiction test. in the superman example, you'd need to show that 3 units input and 12 units output is inherently contradictory. You could add the premise(call it p1) "input never exceeds output," and reach a contradiction since superman's input exceeds his output.

I'm guessing you got those reversed, and meant to say "output never exceeds input." Otherwise, I'm with you on this one.

However, I'd like to point out that it would be very difficult to argue for a possible world in which output exceeds input without drastic changes that would, in turn, affect the definition of Superman. My conception of Superman is as a Kryptonian alien who comes to Earth, lives a double life as Clark Kent, works at a newspaper, and has powers that are, on closer examination, incompatible with all of the physical laws that would allow for Earth, Clark Kent, and newspapers, as they're all commonly conceived of.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:21:42.066091+00:00

So it is logically possible that 3>12?

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:19:24.379148+00:00

Ah, I see where the problem lies. I didn't express this well enough, but my point with Superman was to demonstrate that arguments for his logical possibility which seem valid without delving into the details inevitably reduce to contradiction.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:12:36.438702+00:00

I think I've just amply demonstrated that his powers are logically impossible, unless you're willing to argue for perpetual motion machines.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:11:35.670853+00:00

If energy can be created, then Superman isn't on Earth, defending humans from villains. He's in a universe in which exist mechanisms for energy to spontaneously come into existence. I'll bet the changes that would logically flow from that would result in a world that didn't even vaguely resemble Earth. Considering the role of Superman as defender of humanity, changes such as that would change the definition of Superman.

It's also possible that solar energy is not the actual energy, but is instead like a key, unlocking an energy source with much more power in it.

Which would, again, change the definition of Superman, as he is defined in the comics as powered by the Sun.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T18:02:32.836848+00:00

But they're not physically impossible! Unless they're invisible.

GoodDamon · 2012-05-23T17:59:05.051092+00:00

The specific argument I'm attacking could be phrased thusly:

If I am capable of conceiving of something, then whatever it is is logically possible, even if it is physically impossible.
I am capable of conceiving of Superman.
Therefore, Superman is logically possible.

My point in doing this is to demonstrate a counter-example to the claim that, as a rule, conceivability entails logical possibility. By countering the first premise above, I've also countered any argument that relies on this rule. Even one exception means we are not safe in assuming that a thing is logically possible if we can conceive of it.

I guess I don't really understand your objection. I was well aware I was attacking a premise.

kylesmomsabitch · 1 day

You're welcome, and congratulations on overcoming the indoctrination.

DirtySketel · 1 day

I, for one, find the idea of a pork chop's square root hilarious.

GoodDamon

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login