Some rich guy with more money than sense promised to fund this but the money was never actually forthcoming. I think he realized that even sending eensy spacecraft at a significant fraction of the speed of light AND getting back any meaningful data from that distance was just insurmountable at present. Just focusing and steering the lasers was a much bigger problem than appeared at first on paper. He drew back from actual implementation as he could see his billions were insufficient to the task.
Extrapolations forward several hundred years or whatever also assume ever-increasing technological and economic growth, at least linear if not exponential overall, and this looks like an increasingly bad projection as by most credible measures the human race overshot its sustainable burden on earthâs resources decades ago and this is, increasingly, coming home to roost.
Personally, I believe the projections that climate crisis, resource exhaustion, war etc will reduce the world population to maybe a half billion within the next handful of generations. People in 2300 may well be doing more sustainable farming than interstellar travel.
Of course yes in principle ANYTHING is possible, given enough time and focus. I think the human race though is running out of both time AND focus (the latter thanks to social media).
They are mythical by definition, yes, which was exactly what i claimed, and you said Iâd have to demonstrate, the OED does this.
Necessary for what?
Indeed, but your claims were going further. It is not an objective fact that unicorns are horse like creatures with horns, they are mythological creatures by definition, this is their defining characteristic.
I never remotely claimed they were different, only that detectives and addresses are objectively real and unicorns are not, imagi ary detectives and addresses differ in that sense from mythological unicorns.
No, they are just demobstrated in different ways, and to different standards.
This demonstrates why something is epistemically possible.
This is by no means universally accepted by philosophers, but either way it demonstrates why one believes something to be objectively possible.
Which was exactly what I asserted, that unicorns are myhtological by definition.
You claimed Iâd need to evidence this, but any dictionary does that, it is literally how theyâre defined. Anyway i quoted the OED.
Thatâs not how words are defined, this involves common usage.
I just offerred a raft of objective evidence tgat demonstrates it is is not currently posdible.
Seriously? How can you offer probes as evidence interstellar travel is possible when no living thing travelled anywhere? This started with you speculating about alien species travelling to the earth.
Yes to the first, no to the second. Those probes wouldnât sustain us obviously. Let al9ne for the time it would take to travel to other habital planets in other solar systems.
No we certainly canât and it is risible to compare travellibg to the moon, to interstellar travel.
Only tgeoretically and again it is a risible comparison.
To where exactly? You seem to be ignoring objections over the distance to even our nearest star, the speeds that would be required, the length of time being expinentially longer that a human lifespan, never mind the nutriinal requirements. Tgese canât just be waved away.
Imagining something doesnât make it real. Nor does it make the very real problems that make interstellar travel impossible for us, go away.
It wasnât about whether it would ever happen, I was just making the point that interstellar travel can be considered objectively possible. Itâs logically coherent and it doesnât breach the laws of physics.
Even if it would mean the whole world uniting to put all efforts and money into doing so, if it can be done, then itâs possible.
As to it being viable, etc., thatâs another point entirely, and beyond the point I was making
I said you would have to demonstrate they were necessarily mythological.
The difference is as follows:
A cake can have frosting/icing. A person may have a particular cake recipe, say a carrot cake, that has frosting/icing on it. Weâll call it Bobâs carrot cake. So Bobâs carrot cake is a carrot cake with icing on it.
Now, Bobâs daughter doesnât like frosting/icing, and Bob thinks about it, and realises heâs not too fussed about it either, so he decides to amend the recipe. Now Bobâs carrot cake recipe is just a carrot cake, without frosting/icing.
The cake is still called Bobâs carrot cake, but one of the characteristics - the frosting/icing - is no longer present. The removal of that characteristic from the definition of what âBobâs carrot cakeâ is, doesnât affect Bobâs carrot cake. Therefore it was not a necessary characteristic.
Now consider that Tom, Bobâs brother, tries to make a cake based on Bobâs carrot cake recipe. He gets all the ingredients together, except he forgets a crucial step. He hasnât put it in the oven.
So now Tom has something that would have met the definition of Bobâs carrot cake, except it hasnât been baked, so it cannot be called a cake. In this case, being baked is a necessary characteristic for a cake. You remove the âbakedâ characteristic and it cannot be called a cake.
A unicorn can have the characteristic of âmythologicalâ, but if a creature that is essentially identical to the definition of a unicorn happens to exist and is named as a unicorn, then it would be a unicorn. The âmythologicalâ trait is not a necessary characteristic. It can be removed, just like the frosting/icing.
In order for your argument to stand, you would need to demonstrate that âmythologicalâ is a necessary characteristic, that cannot be removed without a unicorn no longer being a unicorn. Otherwise, my argument stands, that a unicorn could be possibly discovered on another planet, and a person could logically name it a unicorn, and it would be a unicorn.
Incorrect. As I have already pointed out, a unicorn first appeared in Greek literature in 400BC when a historian referenced it. Dictionaries describe usage, not ontological necessity. Being mythological is inessential to the identity of a unicorn, not essential.
Horses and horns are objectively real too.
So weâve established that horses, horns, detectives, and addresses are objectively real, and unicorns and Sherlock Holmes are at present, fictional/mythological.
Sounds like my analogy fits perfectly.
(As before, I wonât repeat my above answers to your further points that are answered already by the above)
Thatâs a semantic fallacy. Iâm not disputing common usage, but definitions change to reflect current usage. If the discoverer formally designates a newly discovered creature that looks like a unicorn, as a unicorn, then it has become a unicorn, and the dictionary would be updated as the name becomes common usage.
Where? I provided a link that supported otherwise, and gave a thorough explanation. You just tried to shoot down my initial points but it didnât demonstrate anything was not possible. Youâre also shifting the goalposts, as I havenât claimed âcurrently possibleâ just nomologically possible - which means, in principle, under the laws of physics.
If we can send an object outside the solar system, then it is possible for us to send objects outside the solar system. From there itâs a matter of scale. Is there anything to suggest that there is a limit to the size of object we send out of the solar system? No. There isnât a hole that an object has to fit inside to exit the solar system. Therefore one can reasonably infer that larger objects can exit the solar system.
We have built larger objects containing humans and sent them to the moon. Therefore we can reasonably infer that we can send a larger object containing humans to exit the solar system.
Itâs not. Itâs just a matter of scale. We can build small craft, we can build large craft. The difference is in cost and resources.
Theoretically is sufficient. Means itâs possible. Iâm only talking about it being possible. The comparison fits. Again, itâs a matter of scale. A trip to Mars would take approximately 6 months each way, and we would have the means to keep people fed, watered, breathing during that time. A journey exiting the solar system is a matter of scale.
Thatâs why I referenced generational ships - just a matter of larger scale.
No, it doesnât. But I provided a link to an academic article on the subject. Thatâs not imagination, itâs technological fact. It is technologically possible. It is nomologically possible.
We landed on the moon with technology that even some of the early mobile phones exceeded by a significant margin. A generational ship is possible.
It was your claim not mine, I said mythological by definition, you canât tell me I have to satisfy a criteria you introduced, and I have never used.
It has this as a primary charecteristic by definition.
It canât exist exactly as defined, obviously.
If a circle had 3 sides it would a triangle, so your rather circular observation has 2 problems
Theyâre mythological by definition.
If whatever this is existed itâd differ to its primary characteristic by definition.
Nonsense, I only asserted they are mythological by definition, I donât need to satisfy criteria youve added arbitrarily.
No it doesnât, as you would need to demonstrate real world possibility, though this criteria is not one you adhere to, many philosophers do, but it seems you want to alter my arguments now, demand I prove straw men, whilst making assertions yourself without even the pretence of evidence, that contradict the definition of unicorns, and using false equivalences that cite attributes from nature as if these are then necessary, while primary characteristics from the definition must be demonstrated, while all the while claimiing your argument is rationally consistent. Sauce for the goose etcâŚ
But you have introduced a criteria. Sure, you didnât use the word necessary, but the word fits what you are doing.
Necessary = meaning something that cannot be removed from the definition.
Definitions can change - theyâre not immutable. Youâll notice that there are 8 different definitions for unicorn in the dictionary (US). Definitions are based on common usage.
There can be necessary characteristics in a definition - i.e., characteristics that cannot be changed or the thing no longer matches the definition, but this then has to be evidenced as being necessary, which is the point I have made.
So in summary, either you donât consider âmythologicalâ to be a necessary characteristic, and therefore a newly discovered creature can be named as a unicorn, or you do consider it to be a necessary characteristic, in which case you would need to evidence why it must be.
And that proves the point Iâm making. Shapes have necessary characteristics. A triangle necessarily has 3 sides. If someone tried to call something a four sided triangle, it would be a square or rectangle. You canât have a square circle as itâs logically incoherent.
A unicorn being mythological or imaginary is not a necessary characteristic. Itâs just the commonly accepted usage. If something changed that, the definition could be adjusted or a new definition added to the word.
A four-sided triangle is logically impossible. A non-mythological unicorn is not logically impossible.
Iâve already done that. Iâve cited the real world possibility of life being discovered on another planet and the discoverer of that life naming a creature that looks horse-like and has a horn on its head, a unicorn. It is logically coherent.
Youâre making a strawman right here.
Iâve evidenced my points clearly enough. I have repeated the points you have specifically tried to rebut as above with evidence.
I said they were mythological by definition you objected, I offered the OEDâs definition which supported my claim. Nothing more than that is necessary for my claim.
Yes they can, and I already explained why that was irrelevant to my assertions since I said unicorns are mythological by definition, I used the present tense, so the etymology is not relevant to that point.
Stop putting words into my mouth, the claim is perfectly clear, as is itâs meaning, as is the definition from the OED that entirely supports my claim that âunicorns are mythological by definitionâ.
I pointed out a similarity between two claims, I was not asserting the examples used in those claims were the same. Unicorns remain mythological by definition. If they existed then they would no longer be what we define when we say unicorn.
An extant mythological creature certainly contains a logical contradiction. It brings us back to your earlier false equivalence in that though mythologies may contain real things, horse like bodies and horns, the mythology itself is not real, and the primary characteristic in the definition of unicorns is that they are mythological.
Claimed I believe is what you mean, not cited.
Am I, are you sure?
Well of course the word evidence doesnât always suggest a uniform standard, and I suspect what constitutes credible or compelling evidence is something else we would disagree on.
The OED, and any other dictionary, only provides a definition of common usage.
Consider for example, the dictionary has a definition for âxyzzyâ that says it is a form of âqwertleâ that is reticulated and has a reddish colour.
Then, there is a change to xyzzy was some have a silver colour instead, so the dictionary definition is updated to indicate it has a reddish or silver colour. And then it changes again because some versions are not reticulated, and so on.
It may be that in this example, the one necessary characteristic is that the xyzzy is a form of qwertle. It doesnât matter if it is reticulated or not, or what colour it is, but if was no longer a form of qwertle, it wouldnât be an xyzzy.
This is the point being made about unicorns. At the moment, the common usage of the word âunicornâ is that it refers to a mythological or imaginary creature, but that is merely reflecting common usage.
The definition doesnât hold authority. It does not and cannot prevent a unicorn from existing if someone decides to name something that looks like a unicorn, as a unicorn, and that then also becomes common usage.
The only way something can be prevented in that manner, is if the characteristic is necessary - such as a square necessarily having four equal sides, a triangle having three sides, etc.
Therefore my argument is that either:
The definition for âunicornâ can change to suit the current common usage, so a creature could be discovered and named as a unicorn, and the definition would adjust accordingly
It would need to be evidenced that a unicorn is necessarily mythological, and that the definition cannot therefore apply to a creature that exists.
Consider a similar definition for âbigfootâ:
âa very large, hairy, humanoid creature of legend, reputed to inhabit wilderness areas of the United States and Canada, especially the Pacific Northwest.â
In this case, instead of being mythological or imaginary, itâs called a âlegendâ, which reflects the more tentative position taken. Should it be proved âbigfootâ doesnât exist, then it would be mythological/imaginary, and if by some wild chance it should be discovered to exist, it would no longer be a legend.
This has already actually happened - and effectively demonstrates my argument. Gorillas were once thought to be mythical, as per the following:
So this proves that a creature defined as mythological can be real. Note that despite Gorillas being considered mythical, they were still in existence - reality doesnât care what people think.
Not to mention, thereâs also an ideal opportunity for a gorillas in the myth joke there.
and I made it clear that I was arguing about a potential, possible future. Trying to rebut that argument by limiting your argument to the present tense is illogical. I wasnât talking about the present, so thatâs false equivalence.
Thatâs literally not putting any words in your mouth. Iâm summarising two possibilities. Itâs a binary choice - either you donât or you do. For me to have put words in your mouth, I would have needed to choose one specific one on your behalf which I demonstrably did not do, so your accusation is baseless and incorrect.
You keep arguing the point you want to argue, but you keep ignoring my point or - as per this instance - accuse me incorrectly of putting words in your mouth when I am literally stating the possibilities based on my argument.
And this is where I am drawing the argument of whether you consider it to be a necessary characteristic or not. I am saying if they are found to exist, or if they are named by someone who discovers them, the definition would change. If you claim the definition must remain âmythologicalâ then that is claiming it is a necessary characteristic. if you consider it possible for the definition to change, then that aligns with my argument on this point from the outset.
Perhaps you need to re-read what you literally quoted me as saying. Notice the words ânon-mythologicalâ.
You keep saying primary characteristic. Are you trying to claim that the characteristic is greater in importance here? or are you just using the word primary based on the order it happens to be stated in the definition. If itâs the former, then I would ask you prove it. If itâs the latter then this is an irrelevant term. Something has to come first in the definition, and pointing that out doesnât lend the argument any weight.
You keep arguing the same thing over and over and ignoring my actual argument. Thatâs the literal definition of a strawman.
Yes.
Further example of a strawman - youâre questioning standards of evidence, but youâre not actually responding to the evidence itself.
No Iâm not, you are by introducing the word necessary and assigning it to a claim I made, when I made no such claim.
Which is how definitions are compiled, and which is exactly the context of my claim that unicorns are mythological by definition, which you then objected to. What should I use to illustrate my point after you disputed it.
You canât tell the future anymore than anyone else, it is a fact that unicorns are mythical by definition, if that ever changes then I reconsider until it does I do not accept that they are objectively possible.
You are claiming a creature that is mythological by definition might be possible in the future, and I am being irrational, priceless. I used no false equivalence, as I cannot claim to know what the future might hold, anymore than you can, and so I was using the facts at hand.
You literally introduced a word I had not used, and told me what I was saying using that word. I said by definition, I made it clear what I meant, I never used nor implied any characteristic was necessary.
I am a patient man, I have had my say, and I will now consider that exchange at an end, it is clear I never used the word necessary, it is clear I never intended nor implied it to be used in this context.
it is a defined characteristic, and since the dictionary defines them as mythical, this disputes your claim they are (note the tense) objectively possible.
No it doesnât, that would be the case if the definition changed, but the facts at this moment do not support the claim. Again I cannot predict the future.
I had assumed it was a typo, as that contradicted your earlier claim that unicorns are objectively possible. If a non-mythical unicorn is logically impossible, then they cannot be objectively possible, as something cannot be both an extant part of reality and mythical, they are mutually exclusive.
Greater than what, all the other characteristics? Well they have to be viewed in the context that it is first defined as mythical.
The fact it comes first is not the point, the fact it is literally defined as mythical is the point.
No I donât, I have been clear why I find your claim dubious, and your arguments to support it weak.
A straw man is when you assign a claim or argument to someone that theyâve not made, I did no such thing, if you want to see a textbook straw man it was when you misrepresented my argument about unicorns being mythical by definition, and claimed falsely I thought this was a ânecessary characteristicâ.
What you labelled evidence, was not at all compelling to me, that surely is simple enough and explained clearly enough above, when you claimed to have offered evidence and I replied by explaining
If not a dictionary or an encyclopedia, what should we use to define or explain the meaning of a word? Is it a free-for-all to define words as they wish? Thy micturations are to me as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee. Yeah, I think that sums it up.
Weâre going round in circles here. I already explained this. If you donât want to address what I explained and would rather stick to arguing the same point over and over, thereâs no point me responding to your point because you wonât move past the fact I used the word necessary and you didnât. I already acknowledged that and explained it, but you remain on this point.
I wonât respond further to any criticisms of the fact I used the word necessary unless you move on to the latest part of the argument surrounding that point. Just consider that any time you raise this point, I have already answered it, and youâre not addressing those responses when you circle back here.
Same response as above.
Thereâs a difference between descriptive and prescriptive. Dictionaries describe how language is used, they donât dictate it. Appeal to authority with the OED doesnât work if the OED isnât an authority, and isnât deciding what words mean, itâs reflecting how they are being used.
Perhaps try to address my argument and the points I am making instead of sticking to the same points?
Strawman. My quote said âpotential, possibleâ this is not the same as telling the future.
objectively possible means something that could be truth in the future. This is like claiming âno female has been US president, so I do not accept it is objectively possible. If that ever changes then I reconsiderâ
whether it will happen or not is beside the point. If something can possibly happen - is not logically incoherent or contradicting the laws of physics, then it is objectively possible.
Youâre irrationally misrepresenting my arguments and making them strawmen, yes.
I am claiming that a creature that is currently considered mythological could be a real creature in the future.
I have given the example of gorillas to prove this literally has already occurred.
Which is why I used the words potential, possible.
I literally gave a binary choice. It doesnât matter who used what word, itâs a binary choice. If I say âeither you consider X or not Xâ, it doesnât matter if you used X.
You keep saying âby definitionâ as it that gives it any sort of weight. I responded by challenging whether you see it as necessary or not. If itâs not necessary, then âby definitionâ only describes how it is seen currently, and gives no weight in itself. If things change then the definition updates accordingly.
Again, the Gorilla example demonstrates this. They still existed even when they were mythical by definition.
Doesnât matter. I didnât say you did use the word. I used it to respond to your argument and presented it as a binary choice based on what you were saying, and giving responses based on either one. You just needed to pick the response that aligned with your argument, and respond to that response. It was a multiple choice response as I didnât want to put words in your mouth. I give you a choice and then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth for not making an assumption.
Appeal to authority fallacy. The dictionary does not dispute this. It just describes how words are commonly used.
Again, which is why I used the words potential, possible no future prediction needed. Weâre talking about possibilities, not actualities. Youâre strawmanning again by trying to reframe the argument in this manner.
I think you need to re-re-read what I wrote. I said âA **non-**mythological unicorn is not logically impossible.â
It doesnât matter which words come first. Dictionaries arenât weighting definitions. Theyâre just describing how words are commonly used. If you tried to shift the word âmythologicalâ elsewhere in the description, it would be wordy and/or bad grammar.
Youâve clearly been repeating the same arguments. The ânecessaryâ word is a case in point, as is the fact youâve completely ignored my point about Gorillas in my last comment.
Another strawman while trying to defend yourself against using strawmen. Again, I didnât claim you thought it was a necessary characteristic. I challenged whether you were or not, and gave responses for either choice. Thatâs why I said âEither you considerâŚâ - it was an âeither/orâ statement, not a âyou considerâ statement. I already addressed this point and once again youâre back to arguing the same point I already responded to.
Well, yes, thatâs essentially how it is. Though not so much a free-for-all as a popularity contest to a fashion.
The dictionary describes how words are commonly used. It doesnât dictate how they are defined. If the common use of a word changes, then the dictionary changes to reflect this.
It is the reason why new words enter into language. Why kids nowadays talk about âskibidiâ, ârisâ, and such.
Itâs also the reason why meanings change, so âbadâ sometimes means good, etc.
I say popularity contest because itâs down to common usage. Sure you can invent new words in a âfree-for-allâ but then no one understands you. But if you invent a new word and it trends, meaning more and more people understand it, it enters into common usage and then dictionaries are adding skibidi:
Not any more, I never used the word nor did I imply it, my original assertion is there for all to see, thatâs all I will be adding to that.
Straw man.
All above, anyone who wishes to, can see me assert that âunicorns are mythological by definitionâ and you then demand I evidence it, and me offer the OED definition as that evidence, QED.
Nicely clipped, but you literally used the word future, here:
Thatâs a lie, see previous where you mendaciously clipped the word future from your quote.
And the word future, here it is again then:
As above I never used the word necessary, nor did I imply it, my original assertion is there for all to see, thatâs all I will be adding to that.
Are you suggesting that unicorns are not mythical, has the OED misrepresented what the word means?
So because we are fallible we shouldnât follow the facts and objective evidence, but follow subjective claims and treat them equally, well each person is of course free to believe unicorns are hiding undiscovered somewhere, I will require objective evidence before I accept such claims, until then I remain disbelieving.
As above I never used the word necessary, nor did I imply it, my original assertion is there for all to see, thatâs all I will be adding to that.
My assertion was they were mythical by definition, and therefore I was dubious about your claim that unicorns were objectively possible, are you saying unicorns are not mythical by definition, or that theyâre not mythical and so the definition is moot?
An appeal to authority fallacy is when the authority cited has no evidential bearing, or is not in fact a relevant authority, the claim was they are mythical by definition, and for definitions the OED is an authority. You canât dispute the definition itâs available for everyone to see in the OED, so are you saying that the OED has made an error and that unicorns are not mythical?
In the future, see the word there, that you have now clipped from your claim twice.
My apologies the two double negatives caught me out, FWIW, the claim I was disputing is that unicorns are objectively possible, and you seem to be saying this here, but with two double negatives and without the word objective? Obviously I still disagree, as theyâre mythical creatures that donât form any part of reality, I never disputed they are epistemically possible.
Straw man. I never claimed nor implied it matters, only that they are mythical by definition.
I know, and the OED is telling us that unicorns are defined as mythical, as I said, and that is all I said.
As have you, but the mendacious part I was objecting to was that I had not been addressing your arguments, I just donât need to change my objections as they are valid.
No you insisted I had the burden of proof to show mythical was a necessary characteristic, even though Iâd not used the word, or implied it, do you need another quote?
Dictionaries reflect definitions as they exist in common usage. Thatâs not to say we canât rely on dictionaries for definitions, just that the definitions are descriptive not prescriptive.
definitions are flexible - they change as usage changes. If - as per the current example with unicorns, a unicorn is discovered, then it would no longer be considered mythological - or at least one definition would include a non-mythological version.
The point here is that the dictionary definition would not be an argument against a unicorn possibly existing. The definition is reflecting common usage, which in turn reflects the prevailing view at present that unicorns are mythological. If that changed for any reason, the definitions would change as common usage changes.
Is that why none of you Christians can agree what version of your god is real?
Each denomination has it own version and if you disagree, then explain why the Jehovahâs Witnesses, the Catholics, Baptists and 7th Day Adventists are so disagreeable with each other about it.
Itâs hard for me to take you seriously on definitions and your other arguments when your own religion isnât even united.
