1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong.
2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
So, if I was living on the other side of the possible would I ever be able to get back to the normal world of the possible where you guys all live?
Or is it like falling through the event horizon of a black hole from which there is no return?
My interpretation of Clarke's statement about the possible is that from time to time someone dares to think about things that for the rest of 'know' are impossible. For example irrational numbers, the square root of minus one, heck even zero was a conceptual problem back in the day. The idea of negative numbers is clearly insane.
Some times these impossible ideas prove to be useful in describing and predicting what the universe actually does, after a while we accept them as normal, then we can move on to the next impossible thing....
I also like the "indistinguishable from magic" thing. For example when Faraday was demonstrating some of his discoveries in electricity and magnetism at a presentation to the Royal Institution some of the notable scientists present thought he was faking it all.
The Arthur C. Clark quote is a de-existentialized version of Robert Browning's famous poem line, "Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?" The latter was used with some regularity to describe the U.S. space program during the 50s and 60s. It's basically "try the untried," an necessary step for any true scientific inquiry.
Does that have a translation into anything an old nerd/geek might understand? It does not fit with my humble understanding of Existentialism.
Of course humans over step stretch their reach all the time. Which is why there are so many failed business ventures, failed sportsmen, failed all kind of things.
There is this weird existentialist idea that the universe irrational. Which seems all wrong to me. If the universe seems irrational to anyone there is clearly a fault it their idea of "rational". Why not just accept the fact that they are not knowledgeable or smart enough to understand WTF is going on?
Does that have a translation into anything an old nerd/geek might understand? It does not fit with my humble understanding of Existentialism.
I may not have used the term in its most traditional sense, though the first sentence of the Wiki page reflects what I had intended -- Browning was speaking directly of human thinking that in turn drives goals, whereas Clarke's was about an objective approach to scientific inquiry. (Clarke also wouldn't have referred to heaven, at least not in his latter years.) I think it's a scientist's clever rephrasing of a poet's concept of the goal of life.
Clarke's quote is often misconstrued as an irrational, but it's not what exists (or doesn't) outside the boundaries, it's the boundaries. Those boundaries have to be constantly challenged, and they keep changing as new science is discovered.
Clearly literally "impossible" things are impossible. Else there would be no point in having the word. There are limits to what the universe will allow you to do. Although perhaps, we don't know what they are.
So "The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible." make no sense in that light,
On the other hand if "impossible" is taken to mean things outside the circle of concepts that people generally accept as true, then there is always scope to break out and tread new grounds of thought. Which may or may not fit with what the universe actually does.
That is to say, be actually possible.
Can't we just shorten Clark's phrase to "Don't be closed mined" ?
A related quote about the impossible - sometimes it’s not that something is impossible, it’s just the approach being used.
“climbing trees to get to the moon”
Like Paddy who came to Oz and worked for the Main Roads Dept painting the double centre lines on the roads...
First day painted 5km, then 3km, 1km, 200m before the boss had a word to him. First 2 days you made our other painters look lazy, but then your last 2 were terrible, and it's a terrible trend. What's your excuse?
tomcrawford
Posts: 1,126
Comments
1) When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, they are almost certainly right. When they state that something is impossible, they are very probably wrong.
2) The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3) Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
His "Mysteries" programmes used to fascinate me.
Unless you start off in the impossible, then all things are possible!
Or is it like falling through the event horizon of a black hole from which there is no return?
My interpretation of Clarke's statement about the possible is that from time to time someone dares to think about things that for the rest of 'know' are impossible. For example irrational numbers, the square root of minus one, heck even zero was a conceptual problem back in the day. The idea of negative numbers is clearly insane.
Some times these impossible ideas prove to be useful in describing and predicting what the universe actually does, after a while we accept them as normal, then we can move on to the next impossible thing....
I also like the "indistinguishable from magic" thing. For example when Faraday was demonstrating some of his discoveries in electricity and magnetism at a presentation to the Royal Institution some of the notable scientists present thought he was faking it all.
Of course humans over step stretch their reach all the time. Which is why there are so many failed business ventures, failed sportsmen, failed all kind of things.
There is this weird existentialist idea that the universe irrational. Which seems all wrong to me. If the universe seems irrational to anyone there is clearly a fault it their idea of "rational". Why not just accept the fact that they are not knowledgeable or smart enough to understand WTF is going on?
I may not have used the term in its most traditional sense, though the first sentence of the Wiki page reflects what I had intended -- Browning was speaking directly of human thinking that in turn drives goals, whereas Clarke's was about an objective approach to scientific inquiry. (Clarke also wouldn't have referred to heaven, at least not in his latter years.) I think it's a scientist's clever rephrasing of a poet's concept of the goal of life.
Clarke's quote is often misconstrued as an irrational, but it's not what exists (or doesn't) outside the boundaries, it's the boundaries. Those boundaries have to be constantly challenged, and they keep changing as new science is discovered.
Clearly literally "impossible" things are impossible. Else there would be no point in having the word. There are limits to what the universe will allow you to do. Although perhaps, we don't know what they are.
So "The limits of the possible can only be defined by going beyond them into the impossible." make no sense in that light,
On the other hand if "impossible" is taken to mean things outside the circle of concepts that people generally accept as true, then there is always scope to break out and tread new grounds of thought. Which may or may not fit with what the universe actually does.
That is to say, be actually possible.
Can't we just shorten Clark's phrase to "Don't be closed mined" ?
Just post to this forum that it is impossible to do with a Prop, and wait ....
The only thing worse than being blind is having sight but no vision. -Helen Keller
“climbing trees to get to the moon”
Like Paddy who came to Oz and worked for the Main Roads Dept painting the double centre lines on the roads...
First day painted 5km, then 3km, 1km, 200m before the boss had a word to him. First 2 days you made our other painters look lazy, but then your last 2 were terrible, and it's a terrible trend. What's your excuse?
Ay, but it's a long way back to the paint tin