Of conceivability and possibilities

[Bubuche87]

This is a weak case for the conceivability of impossibilities.

It's not entirely mine: I got and developped further this idea reading the other topic talking about the MoA.

For what I will say, I will need an impossibility. I could go with the one ended stick, but it's precisely what have been discussed in the other topic. Let's go with the squared circle ( even if arguably a point would satisfy both of those properties).
If you don't like that, take something else, it doesn't really matter.

For a long time, conceivability and possibilities seem to have been intertwined.
I think there is several objections to that (two here)

1/ something can be possible without being conceivable, just because of the limitations of our brain. If I ask you to think about a car, you can probably do it. Now, if I add to this details and details and details, at some point you'll just no longer be able to do it. You will still be able to focus on a part of the car and conceive that part ( like the tire with very specific dirt patterns on it ), but no longer you'll be able to think of the whole of it at the same time.
It's important, because I think it's objectable to Anselm's ontological argument, that presupposes that because I can conceive of X, I can also conceive of an existing X, that because I can conceive of X, I can conceive of X-plus-something.
2/ something can be conceivable without being possible. You cannot think of a squared circle. But you can conceive of a box, containing Bob with a Hat. But if later I give you the definition of Bob and I prove it entails circularity, and even later I give you the definition of "with a Hat" and it entails squareness, you'll still be able to conceive of that box.
And if I ask you who is inside, you'll say Bob.
And if I ask you what is inside, you'll say somebody with a Hat.
And as long as you don't assemble those two elements together, and unroll both entailments at the same time and realize the issue, you'll be able to think of this box. And add stuff to it (now it's a deep blue box with golden stars) so you can talk about it. And add a house around it, and now you can think of the house.
And the more you add elements, the more you use you brain incapacity at conceiving complex things all at the same time, to shield you against realizing that there is a contradiction.

It's a "weak" case because it assumes the definition of "to conceive of" and assimilates it to a form of thinking.
I tried to grab what I think is a common definition of that term, but I am not a native English speaker.
One may also object that the definition of words aren't given by "the populace" ( or other degrading term ) and could define "conceive" as "to think of something possible". But then he/she would have to prove he/she is conceiving of god so ...

[Tcg]

Moderator Action

Moved to Random Ramblings. Topics created in a debate subforum must include a question for debate.

______________

Moderator actions indicate that a thread/post has been locked, moved, merged, or split.
[Replying to Bubuche87 in post #1]