I told you I can argue using the crap Mathematical Logic definition. No problem.

Really crap.

Originally Posted by

**George S**
The obvious conclusion using the only definition in this thread is that any valid logical argument yields logical possibility. This is so since logical ~~validity~~ *possibility* is "the logical consequence of another [proposition, true or false], based on the axioms of a given system of logic."

Well, it depends. If the argument is valid, yes. But if it is only valid in the sense used in Mathematical Logic then not necessarily. Still, we may not need to go there. So, do go on.

Originally Posted by

**George S**
Imagine a race of beings — call them ‘Aliens’ — that is very different from any life-form that exists anywhere in the universe; different enough, in fact, that no actually existing thing could have been an Alien, any more than a given gorilla could have been a fruitfly.

I can imagine those Aliens.

No, you can't. The specification made sure of that.

Originally Posted by

**George S**
Are they logically possible?

Using the above definition, yes.

That's something you would have prove. Can you do that? You can ask for assistance if need be.

Originally Posted by

**George S**
Using your definition, yes or no?

Me, I can't imagine these Aliens at all. I can imagine something that looks not human and not like any animal I know of but I can't imagine that particular kind of Alien, at all. And, you can't either. Which does exemplify to the perfection the problem that people can well claim they can imagine X even though they can't.

EB