# Logical Possibility Pumping Todo: Add [Logical Possibility](Logical%20Possibility.md), [Physical Possibility](Physical%20Possibility.md) [First Principles Thinking](First%20Principles%20Thinking.md) is a highly valued skill. But doing it well is far more nuanced then one may first realize. If you are not careful, you can end up simply **Possibility Pumping** instead. What is [First Principles Thinking](First%20Principles%20Thinking.md)? Broadly it is thinking about the core components of a problem you are dealing with. You try and strip the problem down to it's core [Constraints](Constraints.md), the inescapable [Invariants](Invariant.md), and you reason about those. Anything that is [Parochial](Parochialism.md) is discarded. A great example of this is explored by David Deutsch in [3 - The Spark](3%20-%20The%20Spark.md). Possibility pumping, on the other hand, looks and feels like first principles thinking, but is fundamentally different. It asks "what is *logically* possible?". It moves away from the realm of physics and physical reality, and moves into logic and abstract reality. There are many things that are *logically possible*—even [Solipsism](Solipsism.md)! The problem is that this makes no attempt to create a good [Explanation](Explanations.md)! [We Must Seek Good Explanations](We%20Must%20Seek%20Good%20Explanations.md). First principles thinking does a *great* job of seeking good explanations. It hones in on the most important aspects of a problem, removes extraneous and parochial details, and pushes forward. Possibility pumping will highlight what is possible—not ruled out by [The Laws of Physics](The%20Laws%20of%20Physics.md)—but then move away from the physical world. It will ask questions that cannot be tested, and have bad arguments. > **First Principles Thinking** starts from the foundation that anything is possible if not prevented from the laws of physics, and from there tries to come up with *good explanations* that don't violate laws of physics (or real, key constraints). > > **Possibility Pumping** starts from the foundation that anything is possible if not prevented from the laws of physics, and from there explores logically possible outcomes, *regardless of whether they are a good explanation or not*. Examples of possibility pumping are shown in [*Draft 1 - Moravec's Mistake*](*Draft%201%20-%20Moravec's%20Mistake*.md), [Solipsism](Solipsism.md), [Earth is Enclosed in a Giant Planetarium](Earth%20is%20Enclosed%20in%20a%20Giant%20Planetarium.md), [Mr Witt's Argument Against Self-Similarity](Self-Similarity.md#Mr%20Witt's%20Argument%20Against%20Self-Similarity), [Defend Science by Arguing Against Arbitrary Boundaries](Defend%20Science%20by%20Arguing%20Against%20Arbitrary%20Boundaries.md), and [The Theory Of Gravity Holds Except When I Jump From the Eiffel Tower](The%20Theory%20Of%20Gravity%20Holds%20Except%20When%20I%20Jump%20From%20the%20Eiffel%20Tower.md). Other ideas for names: * Deductive drift * Unconstrained rationalism * meander unconstrained through the space of logical possibility Logical Possibility Pumping is a way of argument that masquerades as first principles thinking. ## Intuition Pump Here is an [Intuition Pump](Intuition%20Pump.md) to illustrate the idea of Logical Possibility Pumping: > The year is 1938. John is a soldier standing in trafalgar square, preparing to be sent to France to fight in WWII. He is scrolling on his iPhone, reading about the last tariffs imposed by Donald Trump. At the same time, he traveling faster than the speed of light. He is also in France, crouched in a bunker preparing to charge. This iPhone-wielding, Trump-reading, superluminal soldier is still logically possible, though it’s wildly physically, historically, and metaphysically implausible. Logically possible means there’s no contradiction in terms—no statement of the form “X and not-X”: * Being in Trafalgar Square and in France at the same time isn’t a logical contradiction unless you specify mutually exclusive spatial constraints (e.g., “only in one place at a time”). * Using an iPhone in 1938, reading about Trump-era tariffs, and fighting in WWII don’t contain contradictions from the standpoint of pure logic—just anachronisms and violations of known physical causality. * Traveling faster than light breaks physics, not logic. * Trump-era news existing in 1938 again violates causal constraints, but not logical ones. This then leads to the question: what is the benefit of logic? This example can make it seem as though it has no benefit at all! The key idea is this: something being logically possible means very little. Logic's power is in ability to provide a structure that preserves *truth*. Logical is about *truth preservation*. It doesn’t tell us _what_ is true, but rather _what must be true if certain assumptions are_. It tells us how truth flows. It implies consequences. --- Date: 20250406 Links to: Tags: References: * []()