The Possible vs The Impossible

Bob Dylan

You've been with the professors
And they've all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks
You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known

You walk into the room
With your pencil in your hand
You see somebody naked
And you say, "Who is that man?"
You try so hard
But you don't understand
Just what you'll say
When you get home

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

A small group of schoolboys were being addressed by a lay preacher predicting the eminent fall of humanity and the eventual destruction of the earth by fire with great passion and conviction. Our young friend was very persistent and eventually he had his word, "Sir, has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?"

The Principle of Explosion states that if any one contradiction is accepted as true, then the truth of every and each conceivable statement must logically follow. The most obvious kind of contradiction is a statement that implies its own negation.

To illustrate how Explosion follows from a contradiction I shall demonstrate that the president is a puppet, with as starting point the fact “New-York is the big apple.” Everything is understood to be meant as being literal.

--- ---

1. “New York is the big apple.” Please note that it is a city,
“New York is not an apple.”

2. I make an assumption: “The president is not a puppet.”

3. Because of the assumption, #2, it is correct to say:
“The president is not a puppet” implies the fact
“New York is the big apple” the first part of #1,
simply since both hold as true simultaneously.

4. From #3 logically follows: “New-York is not the big apple”
implies “The president is a puppet.”

5. So #1 the second part, confirms: “The president is a puppet.”

6. If the assumed #2 was wrong, he also must be a puppet.

--- ---

Thus it has been shown that Mr President is a puppet, and just as easily he must be Pinocchio. I know people who feel it doesn't even need any proof you can see it for yourself.

The Principle of Explosion holds in ordinary logic and everyday life as opposed to a variety of the contrived fudgy logics. By the way seen purely logically this principle must imply that if a single lie is believed as fact, then any other claim would necessarily have to be true, so in theory one could then be made to believe literally anything, blindly.

What constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in society depends largely on the setting. For example in the West many things pass by unnoticed which in the Middle-East would not be tolerated for a moment and would be punished severely. The times also are a strong deciding factor. Just the other day in an exclusive bookshop I saw people strolling around between the books alone and unashamedly absorbed in good wholehearted chat with themselves. I was glad to see this, that such behaviour in public is now accepted as normal.

There are many types of deeds which are seen as beyond the constraints of civilized conduct. The use of alcohol strangely enough always has been a licence for all kinds of bad behaviour and indecent acts, it is very useful as an excuse and even a reason.

&&

A good friend of ours once arrived in the driveway at his Dutch buddy hoping for a bottle of brandy to ease his mind and level his head, he was in a very upset and emotional state. Kooi was in the garden, watering his plants.

He tried opening his car door to get out and discovered the handle stuck solid. But the car window was open so he climbed out through the window with a dummy roll, and shouted “The devil is in my car!!” Mr Kooi had a terrific fright. He insisted “You must see a doctor! Right now!” this friend was known to be very reckless at times. He realized that, no, now he was really in trouble. He got straight back into the car but by the car door. Kooi got really scared he had the ignition in an iron grip but discretion had the better part of valour within seconds and the guy was charging away like a madman over the dirt road in dust clouds with glimpses of a very distraught Mr Kooi in his rear-view mirror.

I call this a severely agitated man. A man not to be taken lightly.

Later on one evening by the fire over a brandy and coke staring at the flames pensively, Kooi remarked that yes the devil was in that car, he was behind the steering wheel!

By the way for interest’s sake, in the Afrikaans language there is no equivalent for the word “sanity” neither the word “sane” and also, the literal translation of “Afrikaner” is “African.” President Mandela understood this kind of thing.

I've shared rooms with interesting blokes. Boet Liefbroer not the least. It was apparent even from the first night that Boet was a phenomenally experienced and travelled guy.

I learnt he'd been a professional streetfighter taking on the likes of Rocky, Jan Wilkens Rhino and Crocodile Dundee, in exotic settings fighting to death. He killed each one. In the dark in parkades in Sunnyside, in the municipal swimming pool and on the banks of the Zambezi name it. The stakes where high. Boet was also a popstar a singer in a famous boyband his real name was Shane. I'd never heard of them. The reason he was in this accommodation was his father had to hide him there it was for his own protection.

Now Boet had novel theories as many as you had time for. He told of how the Smurfs were living hidden in a wood under a fir tree near the north-pole in peaceful bliss, the magic mirror of beauty was in England in a remote medieval castle and so was Sleeping Beauty, alive in flesh! Prince Charming too (he of course!) Boet was an adult yet was clearly convinced of all these as factual. I am serious, as far as I could tell he believed it all.

Another roommate Sifo once started tearing newspapers to shreds throwing the pieces floating up into the air jubilantly shouting, I'm Rich I'm Rich I'm Rich!! He was under the wrong impression.

Personally, Boet I would call psychotic. He had lost contact with reality. His faculties of reason he'd lost. He was happily living in his own world where absolutely anything is.

&&

An acknowledged source gives the following description of the meaning of the term “delusion”, it is a false or irrational belief that is firmly held despite obvious or objective evidence to the contrary. It is clear that the belief must be false in order to qualify.

Obviously a statement needs to make sense in order to be either true or false (not true). Some lines of nonsense verse from Lewis Carroll and odd lines of EE Cummings’s poetry would illustrate.

There are some real traps. At first glance all seems well but we sit with a tricky situation

1. Statement #2 is true
2. Statement #1 is false

As I understand the problem here is that the second statement (indirectly) makes claim on it's own validity (i.e. is self-referencing). Taken to an extreme, “This statement is false!” or for that matter, “This statement is true!”

Note that this kind of thing in fact commonly occurs in the mainstream religions' scriptures, it always makes one feel a bit uncomfortable. In religious sects' literature it is found in abundance and politics is fouled of it.

It must be realized that in principle it is unavoidable. In any systematic study of knowledge there has to be some foundation of basic truths / assumptions / axioms it comes down to the same idea. The most striking is probably the method of abstraction in modern mathematics. A whole mathematical theory now depends only on a handful of simple, basic Axioms (“rules” or “truths”). The axiomatic approach was first employed consciously and deliberately only as recently as the early 1900’s, preceded really only by Euclid's “The Elements.” The method has proved immensely powerful.

&&

As a layman some ideas, visit privileged:

Formally, in psychology a delusion is an absolute conviction, often preoccupying, that is characterized as idiosyncratic, of personal significance to the deluded individual, and persistent despite logical absurdity or contradictory evidence.

This definition is from a highly respected encyclopedia, and although layman's language is used I believe it is sound, and may be accepted as accurate.

If I claim that someone has a “false belief” then I must first establish the fact. Otherwise I myself could be the guilty party. Not so? Typically when a patient is admitted he is given standard tests evaluated on the spot. These are an invaluable guide to the medical team.

But when it comes to his feelings, experiences and beliefs, really they won't make sense of any of it and as outsiders they shouldn't just judge. If a guy says man I got these hidden speakers somewhere in my room they are torture it's the police they don't like my freedom of speech. I mean you can't just jump to a conclusion? Just say that he is hallucinating he's sick.

Really one should first go and listen there with him. Really. It's a cop-out to say: Hallucinations. And also his theorized motives? How would you know?

I for one am convinced that during the NP government people disappeared in this kind of way. Look don't tell anybody please but you know what? I worked for national intelligence and I tell you there's funny stuff going on I swear. I was a spy. Had to get rid of me. Got a match? Please Shhhh!

It is common knowledge (in the West) that in the time of hard communism it was done freely to easily get rid of any kind of “state enemy”. This man smuggles Bibles in! He is a religious psychotic going on about Jesus and that. Fantasy. Found him wandering the streets in a terrible condition. Shame he's psychotic. Paranoia grandeur and stuff, look the poor guy look how he's performing. Manic too. Got to help him. Nobody sees him again. Easy hey? Very convenient.

Each argument has two sides. If our patient is sitting in the consulting room all his explanations and arguments will simply be dismissed. These things take a lot of time to explain. One can't listen to a babbling idiot he'll go on all day trying to convince you, after all his convictions are so fixed and I mean it is all of it just nonsense. Obviously. Nobody can ever change his mind. Who is now going to waste any time to try and prove it to him. Ridiculous!

The mind of an individual suffering from acute mental breakdown just is not a matter of a mind that is severed from reality this idea is simplistic to the extreme. A person's experience is not as simple as: Are you really God? Ssshhhhhh! walls have ears! Or, hell this boet he's an idiot his mom only visits twice a year he beats her up each time now she's not coming anymore. No visitors now. Honestly it's totally illogical why on earth? How stupid. Idiot.

Try to think one step deeper. Maybe there is a logical reason for it after all? For example maybe boet's mom never brings enough BB tobacco? On purpose!! That makes enough sense. Locked up with no tobacco? Got to see it to believe it. She must be sick.

I guess if a psychologist would try to unravel the psyche of an acutely disturbed mind he would find complexity defying any kind of analysis, but most of these patients don't suffer from a shattered mind. Much rather the limitations are on the part of the medical specialist.

But the treatment of (inconvenient kind of) symptoms? Yes it must be a simple matter. It's routine.

With due respect I feel one must really first have personal experience (you, yourself) to be able to make judgments and form opinions on the experiences and lives of other people and to have any kind of insight whatsoever. And consequently, to help another person. Someone who was or is in very unique and highly unusual circumstances, experiencing trauma, physical hardship, and extraordinary and profound alterations of state of mind, of reason and emotion.

I would not feel qualified on giving a woman advice on how to cope with childbirth or try and give confident advice telephonically to someone who is in an unliveable domestic situation, is a victim of violent abuse from another family member and is in terror constantly, literally for her life.

Look it is noble to do this kind of thing so unselfishly but it is very important to keep in mind your own boundaries and limitations. The point is: It takes a thief to catch a thief. This is the simple truth. One can take some cues from the many so-called twelve-step fellowships and other similar volunteer self-help organizations. The mental health professions have learnt from them a great deal already with things such as group-therapy, but ultimately one has the same problem there don't you?

It is possible for one to survive and even to triumph in a crisis such as a major mental breakdown. Many people have.

&

Madness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through. It is potential liberation and renewal as well as enslavement and existential death.

Ronald Laing (British psychiatrist)

&&

The following stories are true. The first concerns a gentleman that I happen to be acquainted with quite intimately. Early in 2002 he falsely believed that the international stock-markets were on the verge of collapse and he amongst others called up the local newspaper that evening and very alarmed announced to the editor “The chewing gum bubble will burst!” The editor also in mock alarm asked “When?” and my friend replied “Tonight.” Later that same night this man was confined to a police holding cell and for a few days and yes admittedly, he was very energetic at the time, you might say he was getting out of hand yes. The police most kindly (and no sarcasm meant) took him to the district surgeon who also agreed that he should be excused for his unlawful breaking activities and be sent to the local state mental hospital for treatment.

It was instantly realized that yes, he is indeed extremely excited and was sent straight to a “lock-up situation.” This lodging is quite basic, he was issued a pajamas (stamped) that's it, allowed nothing else not even jocks.

Of course a man such as that who knew the markets crashed can be expected to act maybe a bit extreme I mean I've seen footage of it.

Well, in due course he stabilized though he of necessity had to keep his discovery secret and only after a few weeks in more relaxed accommodation did he gradually realize that no, it in fact did not occur and not long he was again back home happily basking in the November sun smoking a pipe.

Now the point is that the poor man being deluded right through his ordeal in fact literally had no access to reliable information on current world events, as you can think his friends there in lock-up had each his own story and it's really very confusing the whole virtually impossible to make sense of at all, I mean to get some kind of bigger picture.

So if you may follow me the man from that evening he'd spoken to the newspapers on had no “contact” literally with the outside world, until being transferred to the open ward. Even then the stories all were mostly quite far-fetched and a man has to keep his head.

This same gentleman's brother was also confined for a while with similar complaints and also for quite a while. Exactly same. Closed ward straight, cooled down a bit and regained his freedom of movement in due course. The thing is that though the brother had no interest in the markets, indeed, they were collapsing at the very time.

The point is that if the brother had also been convinced that such a disaster is now in full-swing, neither his beliefs nor conduct could have been seen as “mentally ill” because it would have been true simply, and more than enough reason for great concern.

I am happy to say that both are safe at home basking in the sun every day and I have to state clearly that, yes the mens' general conduct at the time was not in line with civilized norms, and what is more they benefited greatly from the medical treatment but that is beside the point.

The fact is that both were completely cut off from news for a period of more than a month.

I maintain that seen logically our two situations are identical. But in the one a false belief of a crash was seen as clearly a delusion; and had our second patient believed the same then it would have been nothing funny at all everybody knew, the superintendent himself.

So how can one then categorically state that the first patient was deluded? It is actually quite arrogant don't you think?

I insist that he was not.

This story is also true. In the time of the Apollo Missions a man I knew well visited his father’s farm midway between the Karoo and the Kalahari, a thoroughly educated man, mostly by candle light. His father was a child during the Boer War and was in the concentration camps. His father didn’t like Englishmen. Englishmen were not allowed on his farm. The town police officer had to be accompanied by the minister.
The pleasant company ended abruptly when the son mentioned the recent moon landings. He had to leave, and instantly, which he did. The reason for the objection was that such talk is blasphemy.

The gentlemen Galileo Galilei and Noah of the Ark had to cope with similar problems.

&&

It is a fact that a psychiatrist (medical doctor) can only go on the behaviour of a patient in the course of his treatment. In the first place, one has to be a problem in society, in other words if someone is not acting in a abnormal and unacceptable manner he would not be considered mentally ill and he can go about his business.

I’ve personally known people who firmly believed the strangest and oddest things yet they near came near a doctor. For example …

Some Afrikaans people I know actually believed that we are of the ten lost tribes of Israel, from the sons of Joseph. These people had weird ideas. One told me the Ark of the Covenant was out in the North-West Provence hidden on farm somewhere. This particular crowd had found out that St Paul was of the Antichrist and they removed all his letters keeping the rest intact verbatim, printing their own Bible.

By the looks of it many people have total faith in the integrity of the heavy-weight wrestling that’s on the TV all the time.

But all these behaved mostly in an orderly way they slept and ate and went to work all those things just like any normal person.

Then at the opposite side is your conspiracy theory crowd: George Bush personally crashed two Boeings into the World Trade Centre. The Illuminati a handful of Jews control the world and direct the course of history, the Pope is the Antichrist and so on, having doubts about the human influence on climate change, what happened to the energy crisis, where is Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction now and the list goes on…

My point is that what a person privately believes is (and should be) of no consequence to the mental health professions and in performing their duties.

&

There are also two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible; truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible.

Gottfried Leibniz

Natural Science is about the physical reality of the universe. As such it can only exist as a science of observation and experimentation. The actual facts are all of experience (historical) in nature. The mathematical theories in physics merely model reality. They in themselves are of little consequence.

These kinds of fact are called empirical knowledge. Knowledge and facts in for instance mathematics, philosophy and logic are of a different nature (or should be…)

To illustrate: We all know that if I throw a stone up high in the air, it turns round and falls back, on the ground. It as been done and observed thousands and thousands of times (so I am told). We may deduce a (crude) law of nature: “What goes up, must come down.”

We are presently in the times of the exploration of the solar system.

The Voyager, Galileo and Pioneer space probes are not coming back. They will never. In Newtonian mechanics (also crude!) one can prove that if you throw that stone hard enough it will also never come back. This is when the launching speed exceeds a certain “escape velocity”.

Another way of looking at empirical knowledge: Our friend has played the Lotto hundreds of times, he has bought thousands of tickets. He has not once “won the Lotto” and all his friends the same. The empirical deduction: “It is impossible to win the Lotto?”

As far as the real-world goes, “absolute truth” cannot be decided.

&&

I had a heated debate with my café-owner a few years back which resulted in some injuries. He is also very passionate about mathematics and science-fiction stories.

Now as I recall, he confronted me unnecessarily with the following claim:

“Time travel is impossible.”

Well he had some story of how you can’t turn light into matter and that was his proof. I don’t believe in time-travel myself but I told him if he says it’s impossible, for a fact, then prove it. He said no, it is you that must show it can be done. I tried to explain that it’s him really, he made the claim. This is where things started getting out of hand.

But if one thinks about it: If one party says a thing could be done, that it is possible, while the other says no, it can’t be done, then the onus of proof must be on the second.

In the first place if something is possible, it doesn’t necessarily mean I want to do it does it? And the only way really to prove would be to actually do it.

Of course it would be very hard most of the time to prove a thing to be impossible.

The frequently debated question concerning the existence or not of a prime mover, a supreme being, or God, really makes no sense to me personally. For how can one argue that an entity does not exist, if you don’t know what it is? The idea to me is simply ridiculous because the question itself is meaningless.

&&

When the game of Roulette is analyzed mathematically using probability theory it is a routine matter to show that there is no “system”, i.e. no guaranteed method of winning. People engaged in such an endeavour usually are intoxicated at the time and the quest rightly belongs in the realm of the occult.

There is however an optimal method, it would take a bit of guts and if you are lucky then discipline also.

Double or Quits.

Take all your chips at once and put the whole heap all of it, on either red, or on black. Should you lose then you’ve lost everything. Should you win, restrain yourself and leave.

There is no guarantee but you have a chance of 9/19 - slightly less than 50% to double your money.

Although I’ve never gambled it is sound advice. Put all your eggs in one basket.

Pascal's Wager is a game of chance. The outcome is determined by the flip of a coin. Heads you win, tails you lose. The wager is your soul. Place your bet.

&

Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?

TS Eliot

&&

It is God who is the ultimate reason of things, and the Knowledge of God is no less the beginning of Science than his essence and will are the beginning of things.

Gottfried Leibniz

&

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

&

And Samuel said,
Hath the Lord as great delight,
in burnt offerings and sacrifice,
as in obeying the voice of the Lord?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to hearken than the fat of rams.

&

Have not I commanded thee?
Be strong and of good courage;
be not afraid, neither be thou dismaid:
for the Lord thy God is with thee
whithersoever thou goest.

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thine heart,
and with all thy soul,
and with all thy might.

KJV

In Afrikaans the word for “faith” is “geloof”. It is a powerful word. We have only two words more powerful. Broken up in the two syllables it says “praised”. It isn’t so much see in the sense of visualizing but rather, to see. It is to know without knowing in the sense of destiny.

&

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

KJV

Not hocuspocus abracadabra I shall now prove god to you. This is the worst blasphemy. He can prove it Himself. Yes.

All great achievements of humanity, every single one is a monument of faith. From the Seven Wonders to the Calculus. If I may cite more, the Pyramids, the Royal Highway of the Incas, the Great Wall of China, the exploration of the globe by the first seafarers, the Suez Canal and Moon landings.

&

If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible to you.

KJV

My own understanding of this verse is of a very practical nature. Suppose we need to fill up False Bay. We could start with Table Mountain. Instead of shouting at the mountain we should rather go sit in the shade of a tree and discuss our challenge. “Indaba” we call it.

Instead of shouting until we are truly insane think rather, how can we do this? We can recruit enough strong men who are focused on the job. If we could get them each a wheelbarrow and a shovel we might be able to accomplish this task. It can be done. In fact a single ant can do it if he had enough time.

Of course to now go and actually do this you must really first have good reasons. For otherwise it would be a terrific waste of food and manpower.

They had to, in the Netherlands.

One mustard seed in turn can also be seen more realistic light. If you have a mustard seed that is not all that you have. One mustard seed. If one were to plant it in the ground and give it water regularly you potentially have many many millions of millions of mustard seeds as many as you wish. Think in terms of the blessing of Abraham and of the Kingdom of God.

&

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
But when is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

KJV

&&

In conclusion let us consider the popular statement:

“Nothing is impossible.”

It is logically equivalent to saying:

“Anything is possible.”

After enough reflection one must inevitably come to the agreement that the statement in itself is self-contradictory, it is a logical contradiction!

&

No amount of experimentation can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.

Einstein (Attributed)

&& &&

Some other observations:

Careful reading of the relevant texts in the Bible makes it clear that, though both Moses and Jesus did great miracles, when one examines the scriptures it clearly describes Moses as doing each one in direct instruction of God Himself. Whereas Jesus did wonders of His own volition. God did not once instruct it.

My implication is clear.

If one thinks about it carefully and true to yourself you must realize that the acts or emotions of the words hope, love, and faith (believe) are involuntary actions. In contrast, obedience is voluntary. One makes a conscious decision to serve, or otherwise it is not of free will, which means it is slavery.

Also, almost any conceivable manifestation of “love”, “affection”, expects some reward, some kind of trade. Think of a woman’s romantic love for man, or the love of a man for God, or loving a pet a dog say, or a child’s love for his mother.

But I believe that brotherly love does not expect a trade, something in return. So that true camaraderie is a pure love, it is wholly unselfish.

&

Behold, thou art fair, my love;
behold, thou art fair;
thou hast doves' eyes.

KJV

&

William Blake, from The Auguries of Innocence,

To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour.

&

Didn't I come to bring you a Sense of Wonder?

VM

&

Other suggested reading includes:

Herman Charles Bosman "Playing Sane" in a Cask of Jerepigo; a story regarding a certain mr X from the Silver Locusts of Ray Bradbury; Pascal's Pens'ees ( 1670 ); Wilhelm Leibniz, the Monadology and other Philosophical Writings; and Einstein's article on the photo-electric effect in Analen der Physik ( 1905 ).

&&

“What is the price of experience? Do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? No, it is bought with the price
Of all a man hath, his house, his wife, his children.
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy,
And in the wither'd field where the farmer plows for bread in vain.”

William Blake ( 1757 – 1872 )