Which do you think is more correct: a default yes or default no?

Question

Which of these is of your opinion to be more correct:

1) "Anything is possible until proven impossible."

2) "Everything is impossible until proven possible."

These sound a little extreme, let me reword them:

1) "Anything is possible except that which we know is impossible."

2) "Everything that we know is possible is possible, anything else is improbable until proven possible or impossible."

What say you?

emfedurin: I pretty much agree. And to be fair, any zoologist could probably tell you that frogs do not have the equipment nor higher brain functions required to speak and especially not to comprehend it if they did. That pretty much proves that talking frogs do not exist.

In reality the second answer is more correct. While we may wish that anything is possible, it isn't. Laws of physics pretty much dictate a lot of things are impossible for a start.

Note: The above is my opinion based on the evidence I have seen ~ it is not an answer I am forcing upon you. Feel free to give your own opinions still.

Answer 1

I lean toward the first to keep my mind open, but I don't equate possibility with likelihood.

Answer 2

Sorry. I don't do y/n questions. I view them as potential entrapment.

#1 is closest to reason.

But that doesn't mean you'll get me to believe in gods or talking frogs.
Both are possible when you push the definition of "possible" to the extreme.
But the probability of either existing is near zero.

Update:
Interesting aspect, puppy, but #2 is autofalsifying as far as I can see.
There is zero incentive or reason to attempt to prove something known to be impossible. Therefore, technological and cultural advancements would be painfully slow to evolve, if they happened at all.
The fact that our minds naturally wonder about the nature of things in the world around us and create hypotheses in an attempt to explain them shows that we are not content with simply accepting a "cast in stone" universe.
Just the idea that the human mind might simply accept with impunity that nothing is possible beyond what we already have would be intellectually and spiritually anathema.
And because we believe our universe is not cast in stone, we are free to go beyond "what is" to explore "what if"; that is, to also wonder hypothetically about the nature of things.
And therein lie no limits. Anything is possible in the human mind, and the cleverness and genius of man somehow constantly manages to produce things which never existed before, unless he is strangled and stilled by overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

To address your rebuttal in which you noted that the "Laws of physics pretty much dictate a lot of things are impossible" (thus limiting the set of "possible things"), I say of course that's true, but this in no way violates #1, which explicitly recognizes the fact by saying "..except that which we know is impossible".

So I still stand unshakeably with #1. It is not only "more correct", it is also "more necessary". ;-)

.

Answer 3

1 it is!

Answer 4

It's impossible to answer this question although it could be possible if the impossibilities of it were made possible by the laws of probability

Answer 5

I would say everything is possible until proven impossible.

However, something may be technically possible, but so unlikely that it could be safely considered impossible.

Answer 6

None of the above.

"Anything is possible with varying degrees of probability."

Answer 7

yes if you can think it it can happen, all things considered

Answer 8

God knows.