Is anything possible?

Question

Well, hey! There's "possibility" in "impossibility!"

Since we're in "Philosophy," I'd say it depends what "anything" means.

Answer 1

I guess that depends on what and how you perceive "impossible" and "possible". We as people can't develop a mental picture of the "impossible" because if we could, that would make it possible, but more logically "improbable". Something cannot come from nothing, so if our minds can conjure up the idea of "impossible" that alone makes it possible, although probably improbable. If you're saying something is "impossible" in a way, you're also saying it doesn't exist. Like for example, you could say "it's impossible to walk on the sun", so in essence you're saying "a person who's walked on the sun doesn't exist" well, does existence only "exist" in what we perceive, does existence exist in our minds, or does existence only relate to the finite? I guess it all depends on how you perceive existence and that belief is what will ultimiately guide your beliefs as to what is possible and impossible.

Answer 2

There are two ideas of possibility I want to bring out. One is "logical" possibility, and the other is "physical" possibility.

As regards whether anything is logically possible:

Consider, is it possible that (P & ~P)? (For example, that a woman is pregnant and also not pregnant?) - Clearly not. One might suppose that this meant that not anything was possible, for lo: here is a thing, and it is not possible. However, when I write (P & ~P), have I really expressed anything - is it a thing which can be expressed? If I have expressed something, then what? As far as I can see, nothing. The characters "(P & ~P)" do not express any proposition in propositional logic. So I would say that some strings or statements seem to try to express something, but do not. We talk about these as if they expressed something "impossible," when really they express nothing. So any expressable is possible, and there really are no inexpressibles. Of course, you can draw your own conclusions.

Now, whether just anything is physically possible:

If anything is physically possible, then any effect should be able to be produced by any means. For example, consider whether it is possible that matter and energy could be created by saying magic words (perhaps saying "come to me, Ronald McDonald!" will create a real life Ronald Mcdonald out of thin air, not reusing any existing stuff.) It is logically possible (e.g., coherent, not self-contradictory) that this could happen, but that does not mean that anyone could ever do it in reality. This is what I mean by physical possibility.

The only way to guess at whether it is physically possible is scientific: to try it and see; then if you get it, to replicate it. This hasn't happened. So the best guess currently is that this is not physically possible, and this is one thing, so the best guess currently is that not anything is physically possible. While it is logically possible that inquiries into this subject haven't been systematic, or that such things became possible in the last second or some such, that is the most justifiable conclusion right now.

In summary, I think the answer to your question is one of these three.

(A) Yes, anything is logically possible - but this is an empty statement, because something's being an anything is really the same as its being logically possible, and there are no things which aren't anythings;

(B) No, not anything is logically possible, because 'anything' somehow includes such as (P & ~P), which is not possible (i.e., we decided that (P & ~P) expresses something incoherent, rather than expressing nothing - difficult as that is)

(C) It appears that not anything is physically possible, because there are some things which nobody seems to be able to do at all, let alone reliably. This is a statement founded in current evidence. But like any true scientific statement, it is defeasible, e.g., we can take it back later if the evidence says otherwise.

Answer 3

It would be nice to think that anything is possible, but great scientific advancements have been made since the days when people quibbled over what constituted "reality" and "unreality", and for the most part now we can agree that even though everything ultimately comes down to probability, some things just aren't possible.

To illustrate my point: try to take flight from your present standing position. Now, if your bones were hollow, the air was denser, and you were more aerodynamic, this would likely be a possibility -- but you aren't and it isn't, so you can't. Under the present circumstances, it is impossible.

People who claim that all things are possible wouldn't be able to explain to you that you taking flight from your present position were possible unless the situation changed: they didn't make it possible, they just altered the circumstances until it was a possibility. There's a vast difference between the two.

Answer 4

Ok, let's say that there's nothing impossible except death.
I mean, we are able to do anything in this life, but we can't avoid to die. However, after dying, I think we can go through the unlimited space of possibilities.

Answer 5

It depends. If we live in an infinite universe, then not only is everything possible, but everything is probable, and, in fact, everything "is" or, at least, "must be", at some point or another. If there are any exceptions, then we must live in a finite universe. But if we live in a finite universe, how is it possible for us to conceive of infinity?

Answer 6

properly Spin, you nailed it. there is not any longer something extra every person ought to upload to that answer because it lined each & all the bases. Sorry to take heed to you have lost each little thing nonetheless, that ought to rather suck. i've got been utilising Dope for sort of 4yrs. i've got tried to apply it recreationally yet all i've got controlled to do replaced into strengthen right into a reasonably functioning addict. And the worst section approximately it rather is that i ought to furnish up at any 2nd yet i decide directly to no longer. the rationalization why i ought to furnish up is as a results of the fact I purely ever do sufficient to no longer be ill so as long as I actual have Suboxone then i ought to furnish up and after doing purely Subs for 3-5 then i'm in a position to gradually provide up taking the Subs too. additionally, i've got by no skill injected dope so i think of that it rather is much less complicated for me to provide up than for somebody who's banging it. yet considering that i've got by no skill used intravenously i will't rather say for specific. yet my ex-lady buddy shoots it and on each occasion she'd attempt to stop she'd want double or triple the Subs that I do. there's a rationalization why she's ex-lady buddy and not purely lady buddy, and that reason is dope.

Answer 7

Hi,

This remains a controversial question in philosophy. You might think that the straightforward answer would be, "Yes, obviously anything is possible. Some things are just extremely improbable, so for practical purposes they are regarded as 'impossible'." On the other hand, you might imagine that the opposite answer is "obviously" correct: "No, obviously it is impossible that x is both true and false, or that I can jump to the moon."

In reality, the answer is far from obvious, and has occupied countless thinkers for centuries. Dismissive answers such as the above examples rely on "common sense philosophy" and fail to address, examine or define a number of issues.

Some philosophers do believe that certain a priori facts are indubitable, and therefore it is impossible that they are false. Typically such facts would include the "fact that you exist" (following Descartes) or "mathematical facts". Also, tautologies such as "impossible things are not possible" would be included.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29

I'd hazard a guess though, that the current trend in philosophy leans more towards "philosophical skepticism" (the idea that all human beliefs are subject to error and therefore nothing can be known with absolute certainty). Some philosophers might be inclined to temper their skepticism by (for example) making an exception for the tautology mentioned above.

Here's a summary of philosophical skepticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

In my opinion, all things are possible, no matter how impossible they may seem to the human mind. One can always imagine the possibility that one is confused or mistaken--no matter how certain one may be at the moment. After all, how many times have you been "certain" of something, later to "change your mind"? And if this is the case, how could you possibly know in advance that you won't "change your mind" regarding a particular "certain fact"?

The case of the tautology ("impossible things are not possible") illustrates a tricky example. It does seem impossible for this sentence to be false.

You might try to argue against this, by saying, "if all things are possible, then it must be possible that impossible things are possible."

There is a fallacy in this. If we start out with the premise that "all things are possible", then it follows that nothing is impossible. Therefore, since NOTHING is impossible, there are ZERO impossible things in existence. Therefore we are obligated to regard the phrase "impossible things" as NOTHING--because NOTHING is an impossible thing.

According to logic-as-we-know-it, it is possible to hold that "all things are possible", yet consistently "believe" (not "know") that "impossible things are not possible"--because impossible things are not things.

Nevertheless, in my opinion, even absurdly impossible sounding contradictions of logic-as-we-know-it are "possible". This is not at all to say that I "believe"--or even am capable of imagining--this. It is only to say that I acknowledge every single belief of mine to be fallible. To my reckoning, this kind of philosophical skepticism has great value in the moral sphere, although it may seem to have little value in most everyday experience.

Because logical contradictions are not logical, there's no sense in constructing a logical argument to "prove" that they are "possible". My only "argument" is to point to the empirical evidence that humans are error prone, and occasionally come to believe things that were formerly regarded as impossible. Thus, "P and not-P", while nonsensical and impossible for me to comprehend or believe, is nevertheless "possible" in the sense only that I could potentially be wrong.

To me, the admission that all things are possible (even anti-logical things) is simply an act of intellectual humility: acknowledging that no matter how "obvious" something appears, it's possible that we might be wrong. The progress of science (and even logic and mathematics) would not be possible if imaginations were unable to consider the "impossible".

Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong!

Cynics will point out that a thoroughgoing skepticism is inapplicable to everyday life. Regardless of whether it is "possible" that you are nothing but a "brain floating in a vat" on alpha centauri experiencing a simulated reality fed to you from a computer, it's makes no difference in how you lead your life. Therefore, in practice we pragmatically regard things which "contradict logic" or "violate the known laws of physics" as "impossible".

It is naive however, to suppose that simply because a theory doesn't function in "every day experience" that it therefore has no value or is false. Furthermore, if one values pure (as opposed to applied) science (or philosophy), then seeking truth has value regardless of practical consequences.

Some theories may never apply to everyday experience, yet we're fairly certain they are true. One example is the Theory of Special Relativity, which never applies in everyday experience (and violates common sense), yet does correctly predict our observations of the behavior of light.

An even more extreme example would be "superstring" theory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstring

This theory is not only inapplicable to everyday experience (we could never experience multiple universes or extra dimensions of energy contained within matter) but generally is regarded as unverifiable by any empirical experiments that we are capable of performing!

Answer 8

well there are possibilitys and impossibilitys, of course there are you cand to anything without any help and encourage by someone, that means are the possibilitys, the impossibilitys are most of them you can't help people form death , or many thing. i don;t know what to say.

Answer 9

Aristotle contends that it is not possible to undo or alter the past; not even God can undo what has already been done. I would also think that it is not possible to be and not be at the same time and in the same respect. I.e. Aristotle's law of noncontradiction.

"To be or not to be, that is the question."

Answer 10

What is or is not possible is defined by the person, not circumstances or events.
Possibilities are the result of our choices.