What Does "Impossible" Mean?

by XCM

I have recently come across another attempt at creating, or simulating, a perpetual machine.¹

According to Wikipedia, "A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an external energy source."²

You will find it repeatedly stated everywhere that this kind of contraption is impossible because it would violate the first two laws of thermodynamics, or at least one of them.

This got me thinking.  What does "impossible" mean?  Is it something that anyone, or anything, will never be able to achieve?  A goal that has not been reached yet?  Or can we place this concept somewhere in the middle?

In the case of this marble machine, even to a layman like myself, it is evident that, in standard conditions, the gravitational pull alone will not be sufficient to propel the marble to its original position because the same force will be applied in the opposite direction when the object starts climbing.  This would also be exacerbated by other forces, such as friction against the rails and air itself, which would dissipate some of the energy the ball needs to counteract gravity.

However, this reminded me of how often specific events are labeled as impossible, just because they would contradict what was previously observed or, even worse, one's biases.

Questioning, in a scientific setting, is generally frowned upon.  It is sometimes perceived as anti-science.  I find this attitude paradoxically anti-scientific.  The scientific method itself relies on counter arguments to achieve accurate results.  Blind faith is not science.  It is just faith.  At times, we seem to forget that the history of science is full of dogmas that were later superseded by more accurate understandings.

Now, I am not suggesting that we scrap the laws of thermodynamics.  I would certainly have no clue how to come up with something better (or to even get started, for that matter).  I am not a qualified scientist, either, but I feel that at times, egos can get in the way when interpreting data.  It looks like questioning should be at the very core of the scientific method: "[...] when testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation."

Unfortunately, questioning one's opinions is hard.  Admitting that what we have worked for or believed in for years might be flawed is really, really difficult.  Dismantling our beliefs is akin to rejecting parts of our own identity.

Naturally, if an outcome is considered impossible, most might be discouraged from attempting to prove otherwise.  I am not proposing we should all start hoping that a bunch of monkeys hitting random keys on a keyboard will eventually produce the work of Shakespeare⁴.  Even though statistically possible, this would clearly be so unlikely, its probability so close to zero, that nobody would be blamed for terming it impossible.  What I am suggesting is that we should question as much as it is healthy to do so.

It would be great if the efforts of scientific research, for example, were applied not only to prove the scientist's theory, but to equally disprove it.  I think this approach would dramatically increase the quality of drugs in the pharmaceutical industry, for example.

What if one day we determined that the scientific method of today is in itself insufficient to prove reality?  What about those processes that are not repeatable nor observable and for which we have no prior statistical data?  How can we determine their likelihood?  Who can scientifically state whether life on other planets is probable or an impossibility?  Who can say that it is impossible that anyone would like Nutella on pizza?

Of course, I do not have answers to these questions, even though I have tried Nutella on pizza.  I can barely decide what I will be doing tonight.  All I am saying is that a healthy dose of questioning is the only way forward.  Inquisitiveness gets lost with age in societies where the education system mostly focuses on sciolism and conformity rather than nourishing independence and critical thinking.

At the same time, if everything around us was enough as it is, or any alternative was deemed impossible, there would be no progress and no way forward.  Let's keep questioning, understanding, relearning, and teaching others how to ethically do so.

References

1. Perpetual Marble Machine Project - Final Product  (YouTube)
2. Perpetual Motion  Wikipedia
3. APPENDIX E: Introduction to the Scientific Method  Rochester University.

4. Infinite Monkey Theorem  Wikipedia