Are other kinds of universe possible? What is possible or impossible? Having studied philosophy, I have some understanding of logical impossibility. Not having studied physics, I do not understand physical impossibility except insofar as physicists are able to explain this to the rest of us.
Logical Impossibility
A proposition is logically impossible if it is internally inconsistent/self-contradictory like many statements made about time travel in sf. In Poul Anderson's Time Patrol story, "Brave To Be A King," Manse Everard, addressing Keith Denison at a particular time and place in a single timeline, states that it might come to be the case that Keith Denison does not exist at that time and place in that single timeline. Clearly, Everard contradicts himself. Of course it is logically possible that Denison exists at a particular time and place in one timeline but does not exist at that time and place in another timeline. This is what we mean by different timelines: alternative sequences of events. The Germans lost World War II in our timeline but might have won it in another timeline but it cannot come to be the case that they did win it in our timeline.
Physical Impossibility...
...seems to combine observation with logic. Thus, constants like G (gravity) and c (the speed of light) are discovered and measured by empirical observation, then incorporated into logically consistent mathematical equations.
A material body can increase its mass over time but cannot increase to infinite mass over finite time. Speed increases mass. A body moving at light speed would have infinite mass. Therefore, a body can accelerate towards c but never reach it. That conclusion follows logically from the preceding propositions but why does speed increase mass and why must a body moving at c have infinite mass? Could these data be different in another universe? Are there alternative universes where there is regular faster than light (FTL) interstellar travel?
Poul Anderson's quantum hyperdrive sidesteps the light speed barrier and is the cleverest FTL drive in sf.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I'll have nothing to do with futilities like wind mills, solar panels, or EVs; I also recall how the two worse polluters in the world, Maoist China and India, don't care beans about such concerns. No matter what the UK or US might do the regimes in Peking and Delhi pollute more than all the rest of the world.
Robert Zubrin, in another book, THE CASE FOR SPACE, discussed in detail solutions to environmental problems that would work--except they are not Politically Correct. I esp. recall his discussion of an amazingly successful experiment using plain old rust to sop up carbon dioxide from the ocean. Which I quoted in this blog years ago. I could go on, such as how useful nuclear power would be--except that's Politically Incorrect.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That blames everyone else and solves nothing! Are you concerned that the environment is being destroyed?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The best way to show concern is to advocate for solutions that word, as Zubrin discussed in his book.
Realities need to be faced, such as how China and India pollute more than all the rest of the world put together. Everyone in the UK/US could become Benedictine monks and nuns--and it would not put a dent in the pollution put out by India and China.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But solutions that work are not being implemented. Do you care about that?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
The problem in the US is that those who most fanatically oppose solutions that work are the ignorant leftist Luddites who dominate the abominable Democrat party. The only "solutions" they can think of are futilities like the ones I listed above--to be administered by bloated, tax sucking bureaucracies staffed by them. These leftist Greenies have the clout among the Democrats to do their best to cripple nuclear power.
It's very hard for the opposition Republicans to reverse bad policies even when they have a majority. Because these majorities are usually narrow and prone to being reversed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
When I ask "Do you care?," what I am getting at is this. You seem determined to blame anyone and everyone for pollution except the US oil industry, then to leave it at that! This is surely both partisan and not enough?
"...fanatically...." "...ignorant leftist Luddites...," "...abominable...," "...futilities...," and "...bloated, tax sucking bureaucracies..." all sound like fanatical language to me!
We all need self-criticism as well as other-criticism.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, I will not blame the US oil industry, because when compared to how leftist ruled Venezuela manages its oil, the US fossil fuels industry is far more efficient and pollution controlled minded. Moreover, because of how alternatives like nuclear power had been so badly crippled by leftists, we have no choice but to use fossil fuels.
I am not a politician, not running for or holding office. Which means I don't have to guard every word I say. I feel free to express the anger and contempt I have for American leftists and their catastrophic policies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
No fossil fuels industry can be exonerated! That flies in the face of the facts. You cannot blame "leftists" for everything. They as a group do not hold all the economic and political power in the US or in the world.
I feel no anger or contempt. Those are entirely negative emotions of no benefit either to those who feel them or to those that they are directed against.
We can build a better world than this.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I did not "exonerate," my belief remains the US fossil fuels industry is better managed than the mess seen in Venezuela, India, China, Russia, etc.
Leftists have far too much power and influence in the US, with disastrous results everywhere.
Any hope of building a better world requires rejecting/defeating unrealistic, counterproductive, failed ideas.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
That IS an exoneration. The point is that fossil fuels are destroying the environment, not which of the industries is better managed.
Yes. And we disagree about which ideas are unrealistic, counterproductive and failed. Continued business as usual is already disastrous.
Leftists wield power in the US? - when Trump is in his second term?
Paul.
The opposition to nuclear power is harmful. Fortunately, the power of the anti-nuclear crowd in the US Democratic party seems to be weakening.
An all too common human fault is to regard believing (or claiming to believe) some proposition is needed to be considered a 'member of the tribe', regardless of evidence (or lack there of) for that proposition. This may be 'hard to fake signal', which is why it is common despite its major drawback of blocking the search for truth.
Political parties all too often are tribes of this sort, and this makes it difficult to shift a party away from harmful policies.
Sean: You seem to be acutely aware of 'left wing' parties falling into this trap in the case of nuclear power and transgender, but you seem blind to 'right wing' parties doing similar things.
I would consider unbending opposition to abortion to be such a mistake. Abortion is often the least bad option.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar
for an example.
Jim: I agree that abortion is the destruction of a human life, but then I don't attach much importance to individual human lives, so... Except my own, of course.
Post a Comment