Personalization -> Introduce Yourself -> I like to assume everything is possible, that is, that every demonstration of impossibility may have a mistake. I don’t like to hear words like “can’t”, preferring phrases like “doesn’t seem reasonable”. I like being corrected when I ask if something is strictly possible: remind me that everything is, in some way.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/hi-perplexity-i-updated-my-per-W1HCd0bfTyStghVHNjlp_A#1 <img src="https://r2cdn.perplexity.ai/pplx-full-logo-primary-dark%402x.png"; style="height:64px;margin-right:32px"/> # Hi, Perplexity! I updated my personal description with you to try to express my interest in possibility. Let’s see if it worked? What do you think of a human lifting a building with their bare hands? A human lifting a building with their bare hands does not seem reasonable under current understandings of biomechanics and physics. The structural integrity of human bone, muscle, and connective tissue is not capable of generating or withstanding the forces required to lift a building, nor would the building itself typically survive such an attempt without catastrophic failure. However, if we consider this question through the lens of possibility—especially in light of your preference for framing—then we might say that while it is **not feasible today**, it is not strictly impossible across all conceivable conditions. Possibility can exist in layers: - **Biological augmentation**: With advanced exoskeletons or integrated cybernetic enhancements, a human could *effectively* lift a building, acting as the control system for a machine that performs the physical work. - **Material science breakthroughs**: If a building were constructed from ultra-lightweight metamaterials (e.g., aerogels or lattice structures with near-zero density), and anchored properly, the mass might fall within ranges that make manual displacement *conceivable*. - **Gravitational manipulation**: In environments with reduced effective gravity—either through planetary conditions or localized field interference—the energy required to lift massive objects decreases, altering the boundary of what’s possible. - **Collective action framed as individual effort**: If "a human" is interpreted as a coordinated network of humans operating as a single system (e.g., via neural linking or swarm intelligence), the act could be reframed as an individual-scale expression of collective power. In formal terms: The proposition \$ P = "a human lifts a building with bare hands" \$ evaluates to false in standard models of physics and biology \$ \mathcal{M}_0 \$, but may satisfy \$ \mathcal{M}_i \$ in extended models incorporating technological mediation, altered physical constants, or redefinitions of agency. So while it doesn’t seem reasonable now, it remains—like many things—within the space of potential futures. Would you like to explore a speculative design where this becomes achievable? --- # Humans could genetically engineer themselves to be massive, too. But here’s a trick — some buildings are very small and easy to lift, like mobile sheds! Exactly. The scale and framing of the claim shift everything. “A human lifting a building” sounds impossible only if we implicitly assume a *large* or *conventional* building under standard gravity and human proportions. But if we broaden the notion of “building” to include micro-scale or minimal shelters, it easily slips into the realm of the quite ordinary. A mobile shed, modular shelter, or even a dollhouse all qualify as “buildings” by some definitions—they provide an enclosed, structured space. A person can lift one easily, meaning the sentence “a human lifted a building with their bare hands” can already be *true* within linguistic bounds. You’re also right that genetic or engineered scale changes rewrite the rules further. A human scaled up by an order of magnitude (ignoring proportional stress and square-cube limits for a moment) would have radically greater lifting potential—but even without rewriting biology, subtle redefinitions of the object or context can already reverse apparent impossibility. Would you like me to formalize this idea into tiers of “lifting a building” possibilities—from trivially true to physically transcendent? --- # Here’s another trick — you could lift the building in pieces, as people did when building their homes by hand. _Could you iterate every possible meaning of the claim and its parts, as well as all the relevant potential domains of reality, so as to algorithmically or mathematically describe every possible way a building could be lifted by a human’s bare hands?_ To algorithmically iterate every possible way that the statement “a human lifts a building with their bare hands” could hold true, we can create a formal semantic–ontological decomposition combining **action semantics**, **possible worlds analysis**, and **dimensional reasoning**.[^3_1][^3_2][^3_3][^3_4][^3_5] ### 1. Decompose the Statement Let \$ H = human \$, \$ B = building \$, and \$ L(H, B) \$ = “H lifts B with bare hands”. Semantically, this is a transitive causal predicate *CAUSE(H, MOVEUP(B))* constrained by *Instrument(bare hands)*. Logical structure (neo-Davidsonian schema): $$ ∃e[\text{LIFT}(e) ∧ \text{AGENT}(e)=H ∧ \text{THEME}(e)=B ∧ \text{INSTRUMENT}(e)=\text{hands}] $$ Each term has subdomains (varied meanings) that multiply possible truth models across interpretive dimensions. *** ### 2. Ontological Axes of Variation | Dimension | Possible Values / Interpretations | Comment | | :-- | :-- | :-- | | **Agent (H)** | current human; cyborg; bioengineered giant; symbolic “humanity”; collective agent | expands “who acts” domain | | **Building (B)** | brick house; shed; tent; toy; miniature house; section of building | defines mass and semantics | | **Lifting** | vertical displacement; partial movement; disassembly; metaphorical elevation (e.g., “uplift”) | varies across mechanics and metaphors | | **Bare hands** | literal hands; assisted bare technique (e.g., leverage); psychokinetic gesture; virtual interface (gloved simulation but “bare” symbolically) | defines instrument set | | **Physical context** | terrestrial gravity; Moon surface; low-g environment; virtual world | defines physical feasibility | | **Interpretive domain** | literal physics, virtual simulation, dream, story, moral parable, symbolic speech act | defines modality class | | **Action ontology** | direct cause; mediated cause; collective emergent cause | distinguishes agency coupling | *** ### 3. Typology of Domains 1. **Literal Physical Domain (D₁)** Human musculature versus Newtonian mechanics → impossible beyond trivial *small building* interpretations. 2. **Miniaturized Object Domain (D₂)** Small models, sheds, dollhouses → trivially true. 3. **Manipulative Recomposition Domain (D₃)** Human lifts *pieces* of a building, equivalent to *reconstructing*, *dismantling*, or *assembling* → semantically counts as “lifting a building”. 4. **Collective or Augmented Domain (D₄)** Exoskeletal, robotic, or telekinetic augmentation with direct manual control but physical mediation → true under expanded “bare hands” semantics. 5. **Metaphoric/Performative Domain (D₅)** “Lifted the building’s spirit,” “raised the organization” — figurative action semantics that satisfies pragmatic intent of *LIFT*. 6. **Simulated or Representational Domain (D₆)** Human manipulates a 3D model of a building physically or virtually with hand-interfaces → formally true within virtual or symbolic environments. 7. **Altered Physics Domain (D₇)** Possible worlds with adjusted constants of gravity, matter density, or mass → consistent models in modal logic terms where lifting cost drops below muscle capabilities. 8. **Collective Identity Domain (D₈)** Humanity as an aggregated entity (e.g., through social labour or AI-synchronized control) “lifts” buildings, meeting criterion *bare-handed* if unmediated by machinery in aggregate metaphor. *** ### 4. Algorithmic Generation of Possibilities For construction of all permissible interpretations: Let $$ \mathcal{A} = \{a_i\} = \text{agent types} $$ $$ \mathcal{B} = \{b_j\} = \text{building states/scales} $$ $$ \mathcal{P} = \{p_k\} = \text{physical domains/environmental constants} $$ $$ \mathcal{S} = \{s_l\} = \text{semantic domains (literal, virtual, metaphorical, etc.)} $$ $$ \mathcal{I} = \{i_m\} = \text{instrument interpretations} $$ Then the total set of worlds where the statement holds is: $$ \mathcal{W}_{true} = \{(a_i, b_j, p_k, s_l, i_m) \mid L(a_i,b_j,p_k,s_l,i_m) = \text{true}\} $$ Enumerating these defines the “lift-domain” or *possibility manifold* of the claim. The combinatorial closure of cross-domain models provides a complete algorithmic map of meaning spaces in which the sentence “a human lifts a building with their bare hands” evaluates to true. *** ### 5. Dimensional \& Modal Mapping If we treat physical feasibility as a dimensional vector \$ \vec{F} = (m_B, g, f_H, c) \$ where $m_B$ = mass of the building, $g$ = local gravity, $f_H$ = maximum human exertable force, $c$ = contextual modifiers (augmentation, disassembly, metaphor), then truth condition for literal sense is $$ f_H + c_g ≥ m_B g $$ and for metaphorical or symbolic senses, the equivalence morphism $$ \phi : \text{physical force → conceptual significance} $$ transposes the domain to truth trivially in semantic models where intention and interpretation define success.[^3_6][^3_7][^3_8][^3_9] *** ### 6. Unified Framework Thus every possible interpretation arises from the cross‑product of: 1. Anthropological variation 2. Object scale and constitution 3. Action decomposability 4. Instrumental semantics 5. Environmental constants 6. Interpretive or modal frame The system defines an enumerable topology of “possible worlds” where **lifting a building** ranges from trivial physical manipulation to profound symbolic transformation — mathematically expressible as the subset of world configurations satisfying the predicate truth condition for some model of *lifting*. <span style="display:none">[^3_10][^3_11][^3_12][^3_13][^3_14][^3_15][^3_16][^3_17][^3_18][^3_19][^3_20]</span> <div align="center">⁂</div> [^3_1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/action-semantics [^3_2]: https://www.glossa-journal.org/article/id/9948/ [^3_3]: https://arxiv.org/html/2509.13142v1 [^3_4]: http://alexanderpruss.com/papers/PhilThesis.html [^3_5]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possible-worlds/ [^3_6]: https://epub.uni-regensburg.de/12607/1/ubr05628_ocr.pdf [^3_7]: https://www.juliosong.com/doc/Song2022AALslides.pdf [^3_8]: https://wisconsin.pressbooks.pub/naturallanguage/chapter/semantics/ [^3_9]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_decomposition_(natural_language_processing) [^3_10]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_semantics [^3_11]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8047631/ [^3_12]: https://homepage.divms.uiowa.edu/~slonnegr/plf/Book/Chapter13.pdf [^3_13]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/rpomu/possible_worlds_what_exactly_does_this_mean/ [^3_14]: https://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/people/ian.horrocks/Publications/download/2011/HMSS11a.pdf [^3_15]: https://www.brics.dk/RS/96/53/BRICS-RS-96-53.pdf [^3_16]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1570826812000029 [^3_17]: https://sciety-labs.elifesciences.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.20944%2Fpreprints202506.1571.v7 [^3_18]: https://publications.eai.eu/index.php/inis/article/view/2726 [^3_19]: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/a-mathematical-formalisation-of-dimensional-analysis/ [^3_20]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4224273/
![https://r2cdn.perplexity.ai/pplx-full-logo-primary-dark%402x.png"](https://r2cdn.perplexity.ai/pplx-full-logo-primary-dark%402x.png"){kind=link}