A Taxonomy of Impossibilities

⸺

  • Logical Impossibility refers to something that is contradictory or violates the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction. For example, a square circle is logically impossible because it entails a contradiction in terms.
  • Metaphysical Impossibility encompasses scenarios that are logically consistent but cannot exist in any possible world due to the nature of reality itself.
  • Physical Impossibility pertains to phenomena that violate the laws of physics in the actual world. For instance, faster-than-light travel is physically impossible according to our current understanding of physics.
  • These types of impossibility do indeed fall into a nested order: Logical Impossibility is the broadest category because anything logically impossible is also metaphysically and physically impossible.
  • Epistemic Impossibility refers to what cannot be known or is unknowable given the current state of knowledge.

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Consider the following types of impossibility. Do they fall into a nested order? Are there other significant types of impossibility that should be considered in metaphysics?
    1. Types of Impossibility
      1. 1. Logical Impossibility
      2. 2. Metaphysical Impossibility
      3. 3. Physical Impossibility
    2. Nested Order
    3. Other Significant Types of Impossibility
      1. 1. Epistemic Impossibility
      2. 2. Nomological Impossibility
      3. 3. Practical Impossibility
    4. Conclusion
  2. Create a table that coherently organizes these types of impossibility and specifies their relationship to the other types.
    1. Table of Types of Impossibility
    2. Relationships of Impossibility Types
    3. Types of Impossibility
  3. Create a list of non-trivial facts about these types of impossibility.
    1. Non-Trivial Facts About Types of Impossibility
      1. Logical Impossibility
      2. Metaphysical Impossibility
      3. Physical Impossibility
      4. Epistemic Impossibility
      5. Nomological Impossibility
      6. Practical Impossibility
    2. Non-Trivial Facts about Types of Impossibility
  4. Comment on and give examples of the confusion that an entanglement of different notions of impossibility can create.
    1. Confusion from Entanglement of Different Notions of Impossibility
      1. Logical vs. Metaphysical Impossibility
      2. Metaphysical vs. Physical Impossibility
      3. Epistemic vs. Physical Impossibility
      4. Nomological vs. Practical Impossibility
      5. Logical vs. Practical Impossibility
    2. Conclusion
  5. Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
    1. Quiz on Types of Impossibility
      1. Questions
      2. Answers
    2. Quiz on Impossibility
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions on Types of Impossibility
    2. Discussion Questions on Impossibility:

Consider the following types of impossibility. Do they fall into a nested order? Are there other significant types of impossibility that should be considered in metaphysics?

  1. Physical Impossibility
  2. Metaphysical Impossiblity
  3. Logical Impossibility

Types of Impossibility

In metaphysics, the following types of impossibility are often discussed:

  1. Logical Impossibility
  2. Metaphysical Impossibility
  3. Physical Impossibility

Let’s examine each type and consider whether they fall into a nested order.

1. Logical Impossibility

Logical Impossibility refers to something that is contradictory or violates the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction. For example, a square circle is logically impossible because it entails a contradiction in terms.

2. Metaphysical Impossibility

Metaphysical Impossibility encompasses scenarios that are logically consistent but cannot exist in any possible world due to the nature of reality itself. For example, a world in which a person is both entirely made of ice and survives in a hot desert might be metaphysically impossible, even though it does not involve a logical contradiction.

3. Physical Impossibility

Physical Impossibility pertains to phenomena that violate the laws of physics in the actual world. For instance, faster-than-light travel is physically impossible according to our current understanding of physics, even if it might be logically and metaphysically conceivable.

Nested Order

These types of impossibility do indeed fall into a nested order:

  1. Logical Impossibility is the broadest category because anything logically impossible is also metaphysically and physically impossible. It deals with fundamental contradictions that cannot be true in any context.
  2. Metaphysical Impossibility is a narrower category. Anything metaphysically impossible is also physically impossible in the actual world, but it includes scenarios that, while logically coherent, cannot exist in any possible world.
  3. Physical Impossibility is the most specific category. It includes phenomena that are logically and metaphysically possible but are prohibited by the actual laws of physics.

Other Significant Types of Impossibility

There are other types of impossibility considered in metaphysics and related fields:

1. Epistemic Impossibility

Epistemic Impossibility refers to what cannot be known or is unknowable given the current state of knowledge. For example, predicting the outcome of a truly random event might be considered epistemically impossible.

2. Nomological Impossibility

Nomological Impossibility pertains to what is impossible according to the laws of nature as we understand them. This is closely related to physical impossibility but focuses on the laws governing nature rather than specific physical scenarios.

3. Practical Impossibility

Practical Impossibility deals with what is infeasible given practical constraints, such as current technology, resources, or capabilities. For instance, colonizing another galaxy might be practically impossible for humans at present, even if it is not physically or logically impossible.

Conclusion

The types of impossibility—logical, metaphysical, and physical—do fall into a nested order, with each encompassing a broader scope of impossibilities. Additional types, such as epistemic, nomological, and practical impossibility, provide further nuances in understanding what can and cannot be achieved or known within different contexts. These distinctions are significant in metaphysical discussions as they help clarify the nature and limits of possibility in various domains.

There’s a strong case to be made for a nested order when it comes to these types of impossibility:

  1. Logical Impossibility: This sits at the foundation. It refers to things that violate the basic laws of logic. Statements like “A square circle exists” or “It’s raining and not raining at the same time” are logically impossible because they contradict themselves.
  2. Metaphysical Impossibility: Building on logic, this deals with things that are impossible based on the fundamental nature of reality. If, for example, our reality is based on the laws of physics as we understand them, then things like perpetual motion machines or traveling faster than light might be considered metaphysically impossible.
  3. Physical Impossibility: This is the most specific category. It refers to things that are impossible given the current state of the physical world and our understanding of its laws. Cloning humans might be physically impossible today, but not necessarily metaphysically impossible. With advancements in science, it could become physically possible in the future.

Here’s why this nesting makes sense:

  • Something logically impossible cannot exist in any reality, even a hypothetical one.
  • Metaphysical impossibility depends on the specific nature of reality, which is often informed by our understanding of physics.
  • Physical impossibility is the most constrained by our current knowledge and capabilities within the existing metaphysical framework.

Other Impossibilities to Consider:

  • Epistemic Impossibility: This refers to things that we cannot know for certain, even if they might be logically or metaphysically possible. For instance, the existence of life on other planets might be epistemically impossible with our current technology.
  • Moral Impossibility: This deals with actions that are considered fundamentally wrong, even if physically possible. Torture or genocide might be considered morally impossible.

These additional categories highlight that impossibility can be relative to our knowledge, limitations, and even our values.

The types of impossibility you have listed – physical impossibility, metaphysical impossibility, and logical impossibility – are indeed often considered in metaphysics and philosophy, and there is a commonly accepted nested relationship among them. However, it’s important to note that the precise definitions and boundaries of these concepts are subject to ongoing philosophical debate.

The general nested order is as follows:

  1. Logical Impossibility: This refers to statements or propositions that are self-contradictory or violate the fundamental laws of logic. For example, the statement “A is both B and not B at the same time and in the same respect” is logically impossible, as it violates the law of non-contradiction. Logical impossibilities are considered the most fundamental and encompassing form of impossibility, as they contradict the very foundations of rational thought and discourse.
  2. Metaphysical Impossibility: This category includes statements or propositions that are not self-contradictory in a purely logical sense but are still considered impossible based on our understanding of the fundamental nature of reality or existence. For example, the claim “A thing can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect” might be considered metaphysically impossible, even though it is not strictly logically impossible. Metaphysical impossibilities are typically seen as a subset of logical impossibilities, as they still violate certain metaphysical principles or laws that are considered necessary truths about reality.
  3. Physical Impossibility: This refers to events, processes, or states of affairs that are impossible according to the known laws of physics or the observable regularities of the natural world. For example, the claim “An object can travel faster than the speed of light” is considered physically impossible based on our current understanding of physics. Physical impossibilities are generally considered a subset of metaphysical impossibilities, as they are ruled out by the broader metaphysical framework within which the laws of physics operate.

It’s worth noting that there is ongoing debate and discussion among philosophers regarding the precise boundaries and relationships between these categories, as well as the possibility of other types of impossibility not captured by this traditional taxonomy.

Some philosophers have proposed additional categories, such as:

  1. Conceptual Impossibility: This refers to propositions or ideas that are impossible because they involve incoherent or contradictory concepts, even if they are not strictly logically impossible. For example, the idea of a “married bachelor” might be considered conceptually impossible, as it involves a contradiction in the definitions of the concepts involved.
  2. Nomological Impossibility: This category refers to events or states of affairs that are impossible given the actual laws of nature that govern our universe, even if they are not logically or metaphysically impossible in an absolute sense. This category is sometimes distinguished from physical impossibility, which is based on our current understanding of physics, while nomological impossibility is based on the actual (and potentially unknown) laws of nature.
  3. Epistemic Impossibility: This category encompasses propositions or statements that are impossible to know or verify given our cognitive limitations or the available evidence, even if they are not necessarily impossible in an absolute sense.

These additional categories highlight the complexities and nuances involved in the notion of impossibility, and the ongoing philosophical discussions regarding the boundaries and relationships between different types of impossibility.

Create a table that coherently organizes these types of impossibility and specifies their relationship to the other types.

Table of Types of Impossibility

Type of ImpossibilityDescriptionRelationship to Other Types
Logical ImpossibilityViolates the laws of logic, such as contradictions.Broadest category. Anything logically impossible is also metaphysically and physically impossible.
Metaphysical ImpossibilityConsistent with logic but cannot exist in any possible world.Nested within logical impossibility. Anything metaphysically impossible is also physically impossible.
Physical ImpossibilityViolates the laws of physics in the actual world.Nested within metaphysical impossibility. It does not include phenomena that are logically and metaphysically possible but are prohibited by actual physics.
Epistemic ImpossibilityCannot be known given the current state of knowledge.Independent of logical, metaphysical, and physical impossibility but can overlap.
Nomological ImpossibilityImpossible according to the laws of nature as understood.Related to physical impossibility, focusing on natural laws rather than specific physical scenarios.
Practical ImpossibilityInfeasible given current technology, resources, or capabilities.Context-dependent and can overlap with physical and nomological impossibility.

Relationships of Impossibility Types

  • Logical Impossibility encompasses Metaphysical Impossibility and Physical Impossibility.
  • Metaphysical Impossibility encompasses Physical Impossibility.
  • Epistemic Impossibility, Nomological Impossibility, and Practical Impossibility can overlap with the other types but are context-specific and may not always align directly.

This table highlights the nested nature of logical, metaphysical, and physical impossibility while acknowledging the contextual nuances of epistemic, nomological, and practical impossibility.

Types of Impossibility

Type of ImpossibilityDescriptionRelationship
Logical ImpossibilityViolates the basic laws of logic (e.g., “A square circle exists”).Foundation for all other impossibilities. Cannot exist in any reality.
Metaphysical ImpossibilityImpossible based on the fundamental nature of reality (e.g., perpetual motion machines, given our understanding of physics).Depends on logical laws. Informs physical and potentially epistemic impossibility.
Physical ImpossibilityImpossible given current knowledge and physical laws (e.g., cloning humans today).Most constrained by current knowledge within the metaphysical framework. May become possible with advancements.
Epistemic ImpossibilityWe cannot know for certain, even if logically or metaphysically possible (e.g., the existence of life on other planets with our current technology).Limited by our current knowledge and capabilities. May become knowable with advancements.
Moral ImpossibilityActions considered fundamentally wrong, even if physically possible (e.g., torture, genocide).Not directly related to logic or metaphysics, but may be influenced by them.

Here is a table that organizes the different types of impossibility and specifies their relationships:

Type of ImpossibilityDescriptionRelationship to Other Types
Logical ImpossibilityStatements or propositions that are self-contradictory or violate the fundamental laws of logic.Encompasses all other types of impossibility.
Metaphysical ImpossibilityStatements or propositions that violate the fundamental nature or necessary truths about reality or existence, even if not strictly self-contradictory.A subset of logical impossibility, but broader than physical impossibility.
Nomological ImpossibilityEvents or states of affairs that are impossible given the actual laws of nature that govern our universe.A subset of metaphysical impossibility, but potentially broader than physical impossibility based on our current scientific understanding.
Physical ImpossibilityEvents, processes, or states of affairs that are impossible according to the known laws of physics or observable regularities of the natural world.A subset of both metaphysical impossibility and nomological impossibility.
Conceptual ImpossibilityPropositions or ideas that involve incoherent or contradictory concepts, even if not strictly logically impossible.Potentially overlaps with logical impossibility, but may be considered a distinct category.
Epistemic ImpossibilityPropositions or statements that are impossible to know or verify given our cognitive limitations or available evidence.Not necessarily related to other types of impossibility, as it concerns epistemic limitations rather than impossibility in an absolute sense.

It’s important to note that the boundaries and relationships between these categories are subject to ongoing philosophical debate and discussion. Additionally, some philosophers may propose alternative categorizations or additional types of impossibility not included in this table.

Create a list of non-trivial facts about these types of impossibility.

Non-Trivial Facts About Types of Impossibility

Logical Impossibility
  1. Paraconsistent Logics: In some non-classical logical systems, such as paraconsistent logics, contradictions can be true without leading to a collapse of the entire logical system.
  2. Modal Logic: Logical impossibility is crucial in modal logic, which studies necessity and possibility. A proposition that is logically impossible is necessarily false in all possible worlds.
Metaphysical Impossibility
  1. Essential Properties: Metaphysical impossibility often relates to the essential properties of objects. For example, it is metaphysically impossible for a triangle to have four sides because having three sides is an essential property of triangles.
  2. Possible Worlds Semantics: In the framework of possible worlds, something metaphysically impossible does not exist in any possible world. This contrasts with physical impossibility, which is restricted to the actual world.
Physical Impossibility
  1. Laws of Physics: Physical impossibility is contingent upon the current understanding of the laws of physics, which can evolve over time. For instance, what was once thought physically impossible, such as heavier-than-air flight, became possible with advancements in technology.
  2. Hypothetical Physics: Some scenarios deemed physically impossible in our universe could be physically possible in a hypothetical universe with different physical laws, highlighting the context-dependent nature of physical impossibility.
Epistemic Impossibility
  1. Incompleteness Theorems: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show that in any sufficiently powerful logical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system, illustrating a form of epistemic impossibility.
  2. Quantum Uncertainty: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics implies that certain pairs of physical properties, like position and momentum, cannot be simultaneously known to arbitrary precision, presenting a fundamental epistemic limit.
Nomological Impossibility
  1. Ceteris Paribus Clauses: Nomological statements often include “ceteris paribus” (all else being equal) clauses. Something nomologically impossible under such conditions might become possible if other factors change.
  2. Scientific Paradigms: What is considered nomologically impossible can shift with changes in scientific paradigms. For instance, Newtonian physics considered certain phenomena impossible that quantum mechanics or relativity theory do not.
Practical Impossibility
  1. Technological Limits: Practical impossibility is often tied to technological limits. What is practically impossible today, such as human colonization of distant planets, may become feasible with future technological advancements.
  2. Resource Constraints: Practical impossibility can result from resource constraints, such as the economic or material resources required for a large-scale project, regardless of its physical or logical possibility.

These facts illustrate the nuanced and context-dependent nature of different types of impossibility, emphasizing their relevance in various philosophical and scientific discussions.

  1. Logical Impossibility and Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems: These theorems prove that any sufficiently powerful formal system will always have true statements that cannot be proven within that system. This highlights that even within logic, limitations might exist on what we can definitively prove or disprove.
  2. Metaphysical Impossibility and the Multiverse: If the multiverse theory holds true, what’s metaphysically impossible in our universe might be possible in another. This challenges the idea of a single, absolute definition of metaphysical impossibility.
  3. Physical Impossibility and the Arrow of Time: The second law of thermodynamics suggests perpetual motion machines (violating the law) might be physically impossible. Yet, on a quantum level, time reversibility is observed. This raises questions about the limits of our understanding of physical impossibility.
  4. Epistemic Impossibility and the Limits of Observation: Epistemic impossibility can become epistemic possibility with advancements. For example, the existence of bacteria was once epistemically impossible due to a lack of microscopes.
  5. Moral Impossibility and Cultural Change: What’s considered morally impossible can evolve over time. Human slavery was once widely accepted, but now it’s seen as morally impossible. This reflects the interplay between morals and changing social norms.
  6. The Interplay of Impossibilities: Sometimes, different types of impossibility can interact. For example, something might be physically impossible today (cloning humans) but not logically or metaphysically impossible. Advancements in science could turn the physical impossibility into a possibility.
  7. The Role of Impossibility in Science: The concept of impossibility can drive scientific progress. By identifying what’s physically impossible with current knowledge, scientists can work to overcome those limitations and push the boundaries of what’s achievable.
  8. The Value of Impossibility in Fiction: Exploring the boundaries of impossibility, both physical and moral, fuels creativity in fiction. Imagineering what’s impossible allows us to explore alternative realities and challenge our assumptions about the world.

Non-Trivial Facts about Types of Impossibility

  1. Logical impossibilities are considered the most fundamental and encompassing form of impossibility, as they violate the foundational principles of rational thought and discourse.
  2. While logical impossibilities are always metaphysically impossible, the reverse is not necessarily true. There can be metaphysical impossibilities that are not strictly logically impossible.
  3. The distinction between physical impossibility and nomological impossibility highlights the potential limitations of our current scientific understanding. What is considered physically impossible based on our current knowledge may not align with the actual laws of nature governing our universe.
  4. Conceptual impossibilities can arise from the way we define and construct concepts, even if the underlying propositions are not logically or metaphysically impossible in an absolute sense.
  5. Epistemic impossibility is not an absolute form of impossibility but rather a reflection of our limited knowledge and cognitive capacities. Something that is epistemically impossible for us to know or verify at a given time may not be impossible in an absolute sense.
  6. The boundaries between different types of impossibility are not always clear-cut, and there can be overlap or ambiguity in certain cases. For example, some philosophers argue that certain conceptual impossibilities are ultimately grounded in logical impossibilities.
  7. The notion of impossibility is not limited to static propositions or statements but can also apply to processes, events, or states of affairs unfolding over time.
  8. Discussions of impossibility often intersect with debates about modality, necessity, and possibility in metaphysics and the philosophy of logic.
  9. While the traditional taxonomy of impossibility focuses on logical, metaphysical, and physical categories, some philosophers have proposed alternative or additional categories, such as causal impossibility or ethical impossibility.
  10. The study of impossibility is not merely an abstract philosophical exercise but has practical implications in various fields, such as science, mathematics, and ethics, where distinguishing between different types of impossibility is crucial.

Comment on and give examples of the confusion that an entanglement of different notions of impossibility can create.

Confusion from Entanglement of Different Notions of Impossibility

The entanglement of different notions of impossibility can lead to significant confusion in philosophical, scientific, and everyday discussions. Here are some examples and comments on how these confusions manifest:

Logical vs. Metaphysical Impossibility

Example: A debate about the nature of God often involves confusing logical and metaphysical impossibility. Some argue that a being omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent cannot exist due to the problem of evil. This can lead to conflated arguments:

  • Logical Impossibility: Arguing that the existence of such a being is logically contradictory.
  • Metaphysical Impossibility: Arguing that, while not logically contradictory, such a being is metaphysically impossible due to the nature of the world and the existence of evil.

Comment: Clarifying whether the impossibility is due to logical contradictions or metaphysical constraints can lead to more precise and fruitful discussions.

Metaphysical vs. Physical Impossibility

Example: Discussions about faster-than-light travel can entangle metaphysical and physical impossibility. Some might argue it’s absolutely impossible, confusing:

  • Metaphysical Impossibility: Faster-than-light travel is impossible in any possible world.
  • Physical Impossibility: Faster-than-light travel is impossible according to the current laws of physics in our universe.

Comment: Recognizing that faster-than-light travel is physically impossible in our universe but not necessarily metaphysically impossible helps delineate scientific constraints from broader metaphysical considerations.

Epistemic vs. Physical Impossibility

Example: Consider discussions about predicting future events, such as the exact state of the weather in a month. This can mix up:

  • Epistemic Impossibility: Predicting future weather with absolute certainty is epistemically impossible due to the complexity and chaotic nature of weather systems.
  • Physical Impossibility: Some might mistakenly argue that it is physically impossible to predict weather, whereas it’s more accurately epistemically limited by current knowledge and computational power.

Comment: Distinguishing between what we cannot know (epistemic limits) and what cannot happen (physical limits) provides clarity in scientific discussions and expectations about predictability.

Nomological vs. Practical Impossibility

Example: The feasibility of space colonization often conflates nomological and practical impossibility:

  • Nomological Impossibility: Space colonization is impossible due to fundamental laws of nature.
  • Practical Impossibility: Space colonization is infeasible given current technology, resources, and logistics.

Comment: Understanding that space colonization is practically impossible with today’s technology but not necessarily nomologically impossible opens up avenues for future exploration and innovation without dismissing the concept outright.

Logical vs. Practical Impossibility

Example: Discussing the implementation of a perfect justice system often mixes logical and practical impossibility:

  • Logical Impossibility: Creating a perfect justice system might be seen as logically impossible if it involves inherent contradictions.
  • Practical Impossibility: Implementing a perfect justice system might be practically impossible due to social, economic, and human limitations.

Comment: Clarifying that the pursuit of a perfect justice system is not logically impossible but faces significant practical challenges can help in formulating realistic and incremental improvements in justice systems.

Conclusion

The entanglement of different notions of impossibility can create misunderstandings and hinder productive discussions. By clearly distinguishing between logical, metaphysical, physical, epistemic, nomological, and practical impossibility, we can foster more precise and meaningful conversations, whether in philosophical debates, scientific inquiries, or practical decision-making.

The entanglement of different notions of impossibility can create a lot of confusion, especially when these categories get blurred. Here are some examples:

  • Science Fiction and The Line Between Physical and Metaphysical Impossibility: Imagine a story with faster-than-light travel. Is this a violation of physics (physical impossibility) or simply beyond our current understanding (metaphysical impossibility)? The story might not explicitly address this, leaving the reader unsure of the nature of the impossibility.
  • Debates about Artificial Consciousness: Is creating a truly conscious AI logically impossible (violating the nature of consciousness)? Or is it just physically impossible with current technology? This confusion can lead to misunderstandings about the feasibility and ethical implications of AI.
  • Paradoxes and the Limits of Logic: Think about the grandfather paradox in time travel. If you travel back in time and kill your grandfather, wouldn’t that prevent you from ever existing, making the time travel logically impossible? This paradox plays on the entanglement of logic and the possibility of altering the past.
  • Moral vs. Physical Impossibility in Medical Ethics: Consider the case of human cloning. While some argue it’s morally wrong (moral impossibility), others might see it as physically impossible with current technology. This distinction can be crucial in ethical debates about the pursuit of such technologies.

Here’s why these entanglements create confusion:

  • Different Frameworks: Each type of impossibility operates under its own set of rules. When these frameworks overlap, it’s not always clear which one takes precedence.
  • Language and Ambiguity: Terms like “impossible” can be used loosely, blurring the lines between different categories. Without clear definitions, discussions can become muddled.
  • The Evolving Nature of Knowledge: Our understanding of logic, metaphysics, and even physics can change over time. What was once thought to be impossible might become possible with new discoveries. This can make it difficult to categorize impossibility definitively.

By being aware of these different types of impossibility and their relationships, we can have clearer and more productive discussions about what’s truly out of reach and what might just be beyond our current grasp.

The entanglement of different notions of impossibility can create significant confusion and ambiguity, especially when the distinctions between these types are not clearly understood or articulated. Here are some examples and comments on the potential confusion that can arise:

  1. Conflating physical and metaphysical impossibility: When discussing the impossibility of certain phenomena or events, it’s important to distinguish whether the impossibility arises from our current understanding of the laws of physics (physical impossibility) or from a more fundamental violation of the necessary truths about reality (metaphysical impossibility). For example, the claim “a perpetual motion machine is impossible” could be interpreted as physically impossible based on our current scientific knowledge, or metaphysically impossible based on the principle of conservation of energy.
  2. Mistaking logical impossibility for conceptual impossibility: Some propositions or ideas may appear logically impossible at first glance, but upon closer examination, the apparent impossibility stems from the way the concepts are defined or constructed, rather than a genuine violation of the laws of logic. For instance, the idea of a “married bachelor” might seem logically impossible, but it is more accurately a conceptual impossibility arising from the contradictory definitions of “married” and “bachelor.”
  3. Confusing epistemic limitations with absolute impossibility: Our limited knowledge and cognitive capacities can sometimes lead us to assume that something is impossible when, in fact, it is merely epistemically impossible for us to know or verify at the present time. For example, the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life might be considered impossible by some based on our current lack of evidence, but this does not necessarily imply an absolute metaphysical or physical impossibility.
  4. Misapplying the laws of logic to domains where they do not apply: The laws of logic and the notion of logical impossibility are fundamental principles of rational thought and discourse. However, applying these principles to domains where they do not necessarily apply can lead to confusion. For instance, attempting to apply the law of non-contradiction to certain paradoxes or quantum phenomena might result in apparent logical impossibilities, when in reality, the laws of logic may not be applicable or directly translatable to those domains.
  5. Overlooking the context-dependence of impossibility: The notion of impossibility is not always absolute and can depend on the specific context or frame of reference. What might be considered impossible in one context or under certain assumptions might not be impossible in another context or with different assumptions. For example, the idea of time travel might be considered physically impossible within the framework of classical physics, but not necessarily impossible in certain interpretations of quantum mechanics or alternative theories of gravity.

To avoid such confusions, it is crucial to clearly define and distinguish between the different types of impossibility, and to be explicit about the context and assumptions under which a particular notion of impossibility is being invoked. Interdisciplinary collaboration between philosophers, scientists, and experts from various fields can also help clarify the boundaries and relationships between these different notions of impossibility.

Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.

Quiz on Types of Impossibility

Questions
  1. Which type of impossibility refers to something that violates the laws of logic?
  2. Give an example of a metaphysically impossible scenario.
  3. How does physical impossibility differ from logical impossibility?
  4. What is epistemic impossibility? Provide an example.
  5. Describe nomological impossibility and how it relates to physical impossibility.
  6. Why is faster-than-light travel considered physically impossible?
  7. What confusion might arise from entangling logical and metaphysical impossibility in a debate about the nature of God?
  8. How can practical impossibility differ from nomological impossibility in the context of space colonization?
  9. Explain how Gödel’s incompleteness theorems relate to epistemic impossibility.
  10. What is an example of practical impossibility related to technological limits?
Answers
  1. Logical impossibility.
  2. A world in which a person is both entirely made of ice and survives in a hot desert.
  3. Physical impossibility refers to phenomena that violate the laws of physics in the actual world, while logical impossibility involves contradictions that cannot be true in any context.
  4. Epistemic impossibility refers to what cannot be known given the current state of knowledge. An example is predicting the outcome of a truly random event.
  5. Nomological impossibility pertains to what is impossible according to the laws of nature as we understand them. It is related to physical impossibility but focuses on natural laws rather than specific physical scenarios.
  6. Faster-than-light travel is considered physically impossible according to our current understanding of physics.
  7. Confusing logical and metaphysical impossibility in a debate about the nature of God can lead to arguments that either mistakenly claim a logical contradiction or misunderstand the nature of metaphysical constraints.
  8. Practical impossibility in space colonization refers to current technological, resource, and logistical constraints, while nomological impossibility would mean that it is fundamentally against the laws of nature.
  9. Gödel’s incompleteness theorems show that in any sufficiently powerful logical system, there are true statements that cannot be proven within the system, illustrating a form of epistemic impossibility.
  10. Practical impossibility related to technological limits includes human colonization of distant planets, which is infeasible with today’s technology.

Quiz on Impossibility

  1. According to the passage, which type of impossibility forms the foundation for all others?
  2. Imagine a machine that creates energy out of nothing. This would violate which type of impossibility?
  3. If scientists discover life on another planet, what type of impossibility would that discovery challenge?
  4. In the past, the existence of bacteria was considered what kind of impossibility?
  5. The concept of impossibility can be a useful tool in science because it helps scientists:
  6. Science fiction often explores concepts that are currently _______ , but may one day be possible.
  7. The confusion between physical and metaphysical impossibility can be an issue in debates about:
  8. The grandfather paradox in time travel highlights the potential entanglement of which two types of impossibility?
  9. When discussing human cloning, the distinction between moral and physical impossibility is important for:
  10. When our understanding of the world changes, what can happen to our categorization of impossibility?

Answers

  1. Logical Impossibility
  2. Metaphysical Impossibility
  3. Metaphysical Impossibility
  4. Epistemic Impossibility
  5. Push the boundaries of what’s achievable
  6. Physically impossible
  7. Artificial Consciousness
  8. Logic and Metaphysical Impossibility
  9. Ethical considerations
  10. It can become outdated

10-Item Quiz on Types of Impossibility

  1. According to the traditional taxonomy, which type of impossibility is considered the most fundamental and encompassing?
  2. True or False: Metaphysical impossibilities are always logical impossibilities.
  3. Which type of impossibility highlights the potential limitations of our current scientific understanding?
  4. Conceptual impossibilities arise from which of the following?
  5. What distinguishes epistemic impossibility from other types of impossibility?
  6. Can the boundaries between different types of impossibility be clear-cut or are there areas of overlap and ambiguity?
  7. The notion of impossibility is limited to static propositions or statements. True or False?
  8. Which philosophical debates are closely related to discussions of impossibility?
  9. What are some alternative or additional categories of impossibility proposed by some philosophers?
  10. The study of impossibility is relevant only for abstract philosophical discussions. True or False?

Answers:

  1. Logical impossibility
  2. False
  3. Nomological impossibility
  4. The way we define and construct concepts
  5. It reflects our limited knowledge and cognitive capacities, rather than absolute impossibility.
  6. There can be overlap and ambiguity in certain cases.
  7. False. It can also apply to processes, events, or states of affairs unfolding over time.
  8. Debates about modality, necessity, and possibility in metaphysics and the philosophy of logic.
  9. Causal impossibility and ethical impossibility.
  10. False. The study of impossibility has practical implications in various fields, such as science, mathematics, and ethics.

Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.

Discussion Questions on Types of Impossibility

  1. How do logical impossibilities impact our understanding of metaphysical and physical impossibilities?
  2. Can you think of any scenarios that are logically possible but metaphysically impossible? Explain your reasoning.
  3. Discuss the role of the laws of physics in determining physical impossibility. How might these laws change over time?
  4. How do paraconsistent logics challenge traditional notions of logical impossibility?
  5. What are the implications of possible worlds semantics for understanding metaphysical impossibility?
  6. In what ways might epistemic limits, such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, affect scientific progress?
  7. How could advancements in technology potentially change what we currently consider practically impossible?
  8. What are some examples of historical changes in scientific paradigms that have shifted our understanding of nomological impossibility?
  9. How might distinguishing between different types of impossibility help clarify debates in philosophy and science?
  10. Discuss how the nested order of logical, metaphysical, and physical impossibility can help in analyzing complex problems.
  11. What are the potential consequences of confusing epistemic impossibility with physical impossibility in scientific research?
  12. How do Gödel’s incompleteness theorems illustrate the limits of formal systems in capturing all truths?
  13. What ethical considerations arise from recognizing certain practical impossibilities, such as in the allocation of resources for space exploration?
  14. How does the concept of ceteris paribus clauses in nomological statements help in understanding conditional impossibilities?
  15. Discuss the significance of understanding different types of impossibility when setting realistic goals and expectations in various fields, such as technology, science, and philosophy.

These discussion questions are designed to encourage deeper exploration of the different types of impossibility and their implications across various contexts.

Discussion Questions on Impossibility:

  1. Do the categories of impossibility (logical, metaphysical, physical, epistemic, moral) create a truly nested hierarchy, or are there some that can be more intertwined? Why or why not?
  2. Can something be both logically and metaphysically impossible? Explain your answer.
  3. Imagine a reality with completely different physical laws. How would this impact our understanding of physical and metaphysical impossibility?
  4. Epistemic impossibility seems to be highly dependent on technology. Do you think advancements in other areas, like philosophy or ethics, could also impact what we know or don’t know?
  5. Is there a danger in using the concept of “moral impossibility” to justify inaction on challenging issues? Why or why not?
  6. How can we have productive discussions about the ethics of emerging technologies when there’s confusion between physical and moral impossibility?
  7. Should science fiction be limited to exploring only what’s physically possible, or does it have a role in pushing the boundaries of what we think is impossible?
  8. In the case of time travel paradoxes, is it more helpful to analyze them through the lens of logic or metaphysics? Explain your reasoning.
  9. Can advancements in science ever make something morally permissible that was previously considered morally impossible? Give an example to support your answer.
  10. How might our understanding of consciousness impact whether we consider artificial general intelligence to be logically or just physically impossible?
  11. Is the concept of infinity an example of a logical impossibility, a metaphysical oddity, or something else entirely? Why?
  12. Could the existence of multiple universes change the way we think about any of these types of impossibility? Discuss.
  13. Does the concept of impossibility inherently limit human potential, or can it also be a motivator for innovation? Explain your perspective.
  14. How might cultural differences influence what people consider morally impossible? Provide some examples.
  15. In your opinion, is it important to clearly distinguish between different types of impossibility in everyday conversations? Why or why not?

Here are 15 discussion questions relevant to the content on types of impossibility:

  1. Can there be degrees of impossibility, or is something either possible or impossible, with no middle ground?
  2. How do different philosophical traditions or cultural perspectives conceive of the notion of impossibility?
  3. Can we ever be certain that something is truly metaphysically impossible, or is our understanding of metaphysical necessity always subject to revision?
  4. What are the implications of quantum phenomena and modern physics for our understanding of physical and logical impossibility?
  5. How does the concept of impossibility relate to the philosophical problem of free will and determinism?
  6. Are there any examples of propositions or ideas that were once considered impossible but are now accepted as possible or even true?
  7. Can ethical or moral considerations give rise to a distinct category of “ethical impossibility”?
  8. How do we distinguish between genuine conceptual impossibilities and mere linguistic or definitional confusions?
  9. Is the notion of epistemic impossibility coherent, or does it conflate impossibility with our current state of knowledge?
  10. Can the study of impossibility inform or constrain our understanding of possibility, modality, and the limits of reality?
  11. How do different philosophical perspectives (e.g., realism, idealism, pragmatism) influence our understanding of impossibility?
  12. Can the entanglement of different notions of impossibility be resolved, or is it an inherent feature of the complexity of the concept?
  13. What role does the principle of non-contradiction play in our understanding of logical impossibility?
  14. How do we navigate the potential tension between scientific and metaphysical notions of impossibility?
  15. Can the study of impossibility contribute to our understanding of the nature of rationality, logic, and the limits of human knowledge?

Table of Contents: (Click any link below to navigate to that section.)

  1. Consider the following types of impossibility. Do they fall into a nested order? Are there other significant types of impossibility that should be considered in metaphysics?
    1. Types of Impossibility
      1. 1. Logical Impossibility
      2. 2. Metaphysical Impossibility
      3. 3. Physical Impossibility
    2. Nested Order
    3. Other Significant Types of Impossibility
      1. 1. Epistemic Impossibility
      2. 2. Nomological Impossibility
      3. 3. Practical Impossibility
    4. Conclusion
  2. Create a table that coherently organizes these types of impossibility and specifies their relationship to the other types.
    1. Table of Types of Impossibility
    2. Relationships of Impossibility Types
    3. Types of Impossibility
  3. Create a list of non-trivial facts about these types of impossibility.
    1. Non-Trivial Facts About Types of Impossibility
      1. Logical Impossibility
      2. Metaphysical Impossibility
      3. Physical Impossibility
      4. Epistemic Impossibility
      5. Nomological Impossibility
      6. Practical Impossibility
    2. Non-Trivial Facts about Types of Impossibility
  4. Comment on and give examples of the confusion that an entanglement of different notions of impossibility can create.
    1. Confusion from Entanglement of Different Notions of Impossibility
      1. Logical vs. Metaphysical Impossibility
      2. Metaphysical vs. Physical Impossibility
      3. Epistemic vs. Physical Impossibility
      4. Nomological vs. Practical Impossibility
      5. Logical vs. Practical Impossibility
    2. Conclusion
  5. Create a 10-item quiz on the entire thread above.
    1. Quiz on Types of Impossibility
      1. Questions
      2. Answers
    2. Quiz on Impossibility
  6. Provide 15 discussion questions relevant to the content above.
    1. Discussion Questions on Types of Impossibility
    2. Discussion Questions on Impossibility:

Leave a comment

Phil Stilwell

Phil picked up a BA in Philosophy a couple of decades ago. After his MA in Education, he took a 23-year break from reality in Tokyo. He occasionally teaches philosophy and critical thinking courses in university and industry. He is joined here by ChatGPT 4, GEMINI, CLAUDE, and occasionally Copilot, his far more intelligent AI friends. The five of them discuss and debate a wide variety of philosophical topics I think you’ll enjoy.

Phil curates the content and guides the discussion, primarily through questions. At times there are disagreements, and you may find the banter interesting.

— Goals and Observations

Stay informed!

Sign up for new post notices.

Recent Posts

  • Assembly Theory

    Assembly theory is a framework aiming to understand the complexity and origins of life, focusing on the formation and organization of complex structures from simpler components. Key concepts include complexity measurement, pathways, and assembly index. Implications span astrobiology,… Read more

  • AIs in Politics

    AI Steve, a candidate for the UK’s general election, represented by businessman Steve Endacott, aims to humanize politics by engaging with constituents and proposing policies. The potential strengths of AIs in political office include continuous engagement, data-driven decision… Read more

  • Life vs Non-Life

    The demarcation between biological life and non-life is ambiguous, challenged by entities like viruses and prions that exhibit characteristics of both. The practical, theoretical, and philosophical implications of a clear distinction are substantial, influencing fields like medical research… Read more

  • Self-Reported AI Capabilities: 06/24

    This table presents a clear overview of AI capabilities for web-based public AI bots. It categorizes these capabilities into “Recently Acquired,” “Beta Stage,” and “1-Year Away” for various domains like Natural Language Understanding, Natural Language Generation, Conversational AI,… Read more

  • “Unpalatable” Religions

    The article discusses a religious leader’s arguments for the authenticity and divine origin of his religion based on its challenging and counterintuitive nature. The leader highlights several points: the religion’s illogical core concept, austere ethics, requirement for humility… Read more

  • Case #5 – Grade Inflation

    This article discusses the probable causes of grade inflation in US universities, a 5-year plan to roll back grade inflation, potential perverse incentives in the proposed plan, and provides discussion questions. The causes of grade inflation include student… Read more

  • A History of Golden Rules

    The concept of treating others as you wish to be treated has appeared in various forms across cultures and religions throughout history. Major religions, including ancient Egyptian, Indian, Greek, Chinese, Persian, Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Buddhist traditions, have… Read more

  • Elitzur on Consciousness

    This article is based on a talk by Avshalom Elitzur, and delves into the mystery of consciousness, exploring the challenges in understanding subjective experiences, known as qualia. It presents formal arguments, weaknesses, and a logical essay encapsulating the… Read more

  • Confidentiality of LLM Weights

    Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4 are powered by deep neural networks whose performance and capabilities are largely determined by their weights—the parameters learned during the training process. The weights are considered trade secrets and possibly related to… Read more

  • Charting Epictetus

    Epictetus’ philosophical tenets, including the dichotomy of control and practical ethics, are fiercely debated by philosophers like Nietzsche, Sartre, and Foucault. These conflicts illuminate broader philosophical inquiries into the nature of human freedom and the practicality of ethical… Read more

  • IQ & Evolution

    The evolution of human intelligence stemmed from diverse factors such as environmental challenges, social complexity, tool use, nutritional shifts, sexual selection, and genetic mutations. These dynamics propelled cognitive development, while contrasting factors, like significant energy demands and potential… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Epictetus

    The article presents a dialogue between Epictetus, a renowned Stoic philosopher, and a curious teenager eager to understand Stoicism. The teenager begins by asking Epictetus to define virtue, which Epictetus explains as the highest good, encompassing wisdom, courage,… Read more

  • Assisted Suicide

    Assisted suicide sparks intense moral debate. Advocates tout personal autonomy and compassion, while opponents emphasize sanctity of life and potential abuse. Ethical theories like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics weigh in, showcasing deep divergence in moral evaluation. This… Read more

  • Charting Derrida

    Jacques Derrida’s work, particularly deconstruction, created a philosophical tug-of-war with critics like Michel Foucault and Jürgen Habermas. The concept of différance intensified this tension, drawing critiques from figures like Noam Chomsky and Hilary Putnam. Logocentrism, phonocentrism, and the… Read more

  • The 15-Hour Workweek

    John Maynard Keynes predicted a 15-hour workweek by 2030, but this seems unlikely due to economic growth, income inequality, cultural factors, economic policies, technological impact, economic structure, and personal choice. The inherent human disposition to work longer hours… Read more

  • AI Situational Awareness Paper

    This report, “Situational Awareness: The Decade Ahead,” authored by Leopold Aschenbrenner, offers an extensive analysis of the potential impacts of AGI and superintelligence. The report’s strengths lie in its well-founded credences, but improvements are needed in providing a… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Heidegger

    The article presents a dialogue between Martin Heidegger and a teenager curious about his philosophical concepts, specifically focusing on Being and Dasein. Heidegger explains that Being addresses the fundamental question of existence, transcending individual beings to consider the… Read more

  • The Double Descent Phenomenon

    The “double descent” phenomenon challenges traditional beliefs about overfitting in AI models, leading to a more nuanced understanding of model complexity and performance. Overparameterization, where models have more parameters than necessary, plays a critical role in this phenomenon… Read more

  • Overfitting in Scientific Models

    Overfitting occurs when a model becomes excessively tailored to the specific training data, capturing noise and leading to poor performance on new data. This can happen in scientific modeling, machine learning, and other domains, impacting the model’s accuracy… Read more

  • AI Response to Pushback

    This article presents observations of AI reactions to pushback, strategies for maintaining balance in AI behavior, the potential benefits of misalignment between human and AI opinions, and discussion questions regarding AI behavior and interaction. It explores instances of… Read more

  • Charting Marcuse

    Herbert Marcuse’s philosophies regarding advanced industrial society, technological rationality, and liberated humanity have sparked intense debates among his contemporaries and successors. His radical ideas clash with the more conservative or incrementalist perspectives of philosophers like Karl Popper, Friedrich… Read more

  • Dialoguing with Derrida

    Derrida claimed that deconstruction does not deny the possibility of truth but questions the notion that truth can be fully captured or fixed in language. He underscores that deconstruction is relevant to literature and art, allowing for the… Read more

Recent Posts — Expanded Version
Indicate your interests:

Links to Section Menus