What would concepts such as "paradox", "contradiction", "logic", "irrationality", "belief" and "fact" mean in such a universe? — Benj96

They could not mean anything. Language, where and as it arose (it would have to, being one of the possibilities) in such a random universe, would develop quite differently from the way we use it, for the beings who invent it would have a very different experience.
Or perhaps the meanings would apply to the very same things for a short period of time. If the universe elaborated its need to make everything that could happen, happen serially rather than geographically or in a cascade, then each possible kind of reality might last anywhere from minutes to centuries.

If the universe elaborated its need to make everything that could happen, happen serially rather than geographically or in a cascade, then each possible kind of reality might last anywhere from minutes to centuries.
17m — Vera Mont

That's what I was sort of thinking. Bizarre to think everything you know could simply turn on it's head over time to create a new reality. If nothing stays the same forever, the laws of physics and chemistry would merely be some sort of transient observation in the long journey of transformation.

Gods are easily bored; they tinker.

How might all these dynamics interact? — Benj96

I wonder how dynamic systems would function. At each step there would be many options.

It seems you are describing the totality of possible worlds. Modal logic sets out your answer.

Imagine a universe where not only is everything possible, but that all possibilities must be fulfilled before its natural conclusion. — Benj96

Is the Universe not existing a possibility, in this universe? ;)

Imagine a universe where not only is everything possible, but that all possibilities must be fulfilled before its natural conclusion.

How might such a universe look? How might you describe it? How would it begin and end? How would it evolve and unfold? What would concepts such as "paradox", "contradiction", "logic", "irrationality", "belief" and "fact" mean in such a universe? How might all these dynamics interact? — Benj96

It seems to me that a universe where everything is possible entails a world with multiple, causally isolated sub-universes. So there wouldn't be a beginning nor end to this universe as a whole, nor would there be a "conclusion" to it. Every possibility is actuallized in one or more sub-universes.

Paradoxes, contractions, logical, irrationality, belief, and facts are epistemological concepts, applying to propositions and reasoning not to ontological reality. The only "dynamics" these apply to are the the processes of reasoning.

Imagine a universe where not only is everything possible, but that all possibilities must be fulfilled before its natural conclusion.

How might such a universe look? — Benj96

Perhaps like overlapping superpositions of possible states which gradually collapse into optimally configured forms? Oh wait, that's this universe....

Enter Greek Mythology cause this is how many of them thought? Time is a Circle that repeats all things have happened all things will happen. Giving you the ultimate freedom to act as all possibilities have and will play out. It's quite a comforting thought in my opinion, should one allow the emotions of such an idea take hold. The trick is not being a spirit of gravity to the point you're like a Bill Burr joke character "DATS NOT HOW REALITY WORKS!" like a positivist would. To actually experience the effect just put a little faith into the words themselves and suspend your disbelief.

Is the Universe not existing a possibility, in this universe? ;) — AmadeusD

I would say yes. As one state (perhaps the first state) in all possible configurations would be just the potential to 'be' rather than actually being (existing). Once such a state is achieved, all other possible states involve some form of existence.

If everything is possible, then one possibility is such - a lack of being manifest.

Perhaps like overlapping superpositions of possible states which gradually collapse into optimally configured forms? Oh wait, that's this universe.... — Pantagruel

I anticipated this comment. It is possible that we could exist in such a universe playing out every single possibility and "collapsing" from 'all possibilities' towards the final possibility (which may be the most defined or strict state).

It seems to me that a universe where everything is possible entails a world with multiple, causally isolated sub-universes. So there wouldn't be a beginning nor end to this universe as a whole, nor would there be a "conclusion" to it. Every possibility is actuallized in one or more sub-universes. — Relativist

It would be possible in the "everything possible universe" that multiverses exist - perhaps as you said in order to achieve most of the possibilities without overt contradictions. After all, if everything is possible, then multiple universes must exist.

Of course one possibility is that no multiverses or alternate universes exist and this possibility must also be achieved. How this contradiction exists so that both opposing states can be manifest is Perhaps along some schrodinger cat type superposition.

Enter Greek Mythology cause this is how many of them thought? Time is a Circle that repeats all things have happened all things will happen — DifferentiatingEgg

Yes indeed. It seems that there are a few options for the "everything possible universe" to exist.

Either A). The same universe continues to such a long duration that all things can occur within it eventually.
B) The same universe repeats as a cycle but each time fulfills a different possible path from beginning to end.
C). Multiple universes occur simultaneously branching from ever possible point of change

I think the inference I'm driving at is that to bite this bullet would be to say something impossible is also possible. That seems logically not possible, to me.
If a Universe exists where "Everything is possible" the example I gave would remove this universe - which gives the ability for the possibility mentioned to exist - and we get an infinite recursive deletion. The Universe can't exist if we're trying to instantiate that it doesn't - but hte universe is required for that instantiation, so ... Incoherence! heh

The impossible can be made possible. I argue there are other levels of something being not possible, it's not just impossible, but impossible, impalpable, etc.

It's all good.

How might such a universe look? — Benj96

Well, given that THIS universe is possible, then there must be at least some part of THAT universe which looks exactly like this one.

So... at least for a brief moment... such a universe would look like this.

I think the inference I'm driving at is that to bite this bullet would be to say something impossible is also possible — AmadeusD

You haven't factored in the important influence of time. Is the passage of time, ie the "change" that occurs in the system not what divides "the possible" from "the impossible"?

Simple example: 500 years ago, were iPhones possible?

I agree that contradictions ought not occur "simultaneously" (that's the crux) ie that iphones could both exist and not exist in 2024 (the same time period).

In a similar way a manifest universe can never not be "said universe." But, because the possibility of a non-existant universe is fundamentally out of reach for those that already do exist, that isn't to say a state of non existence isn't achievable by the system. It would just mean that we could never use any existent proofs to prove the non existent state.

Just as we can't use imagination to imagine the unimaginable. Because it's circular. The outcome is contingent on the premise. Or as you said incoherent.

But I don't think incoherence is sufficient enough to determine what's possible when you take the system as a holistic whole.

It's like the proverb "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" No, it makes a vibration/air pressure wave, because "sound" is intractably linked to "an ear" (an observer/witness). Ie. The outcome (sound) is contingent on the premise (an observer).

In the same way, if a universe doesn't exist and no one is there to witness this, can it truly not exist? Again, I'm sure it can, but we as existent beings are outside of that particular set in the Venn diagram of possibilities.

Just because existent things cannot measure non existent states, doesn't mean they do not occur. Possibility must extend beyond our bias towards that which can be recorded/documented.

Well, given that THIS universe is possible, then there must be at least some part of THAT universe which looks exactly like this one.

So... at least for a brief moment... such a universe would look like this. — flannel jesus

I agree. If everything must be possible. Then existence must include the current reality we experience.

Interestingly though, it must also include the possibilities of the physics and chemistry as we understand them, to remain constant for the duration of the universe, as well as the case where they do not.

Because both are seemingly contradictory, it lends itself to the multiverse theory.

The question then is, with separate alternate timelines of possibilities, what does it mean for such multiverses to "play out/occur" "simultaneously?"

Especially when for example, in an existence woth every possibility, time ought to run at all possible rates relative to one another. Ie multiverses that occur at the pace of a slug and ones that are over and done with in the blink of an eye. Maybe even universe states where nothing happens at all because time in this case doesn't run at all.

the different possibilities don't necessarily have to interact with each other, do they?

It's like running two simulations on the same computer "simultaneously". Even though they're both running, they both have their own independent facts about their own simulations, that are distinct and not affecting the other simulations. One simulation can be simulating thousands of interactions a second, and the other one could take an hour to simulate just one tiny interaction - they don't have to interact or have the same processing rate or speed or anything.

the different possibilities don't necessarily have to interact with each other, do they? — flannel jesus

Precisely what I'm saying. Really nice to get this concordance from another philosopher.

Perhaps they are - by virtue of being contradictory -isolated from one another, not influenced in any capacity by what is happening in the other reference frame.

That itself is a seismic thought because it means that we could be existing in a reality completely separate from 99.99999% of all possible realities. A bubble in its own path of "existence". Luckily for us it is one of ...well...who knows how many... where the opportunity to discuss this, to be aware, exists.

That itself is a seismic thought because it means thay we could be existing in a reality completely separate from 99.99999% of all possible realities. A bubble. — Benj96

Yes, I think it's an idea worth entertaining that this universe we find ourselves in is a bubble, in a sea of other unique non interacting bubbles.

Unfortunately, it's almost entirely speculative and unprovable (and probably unfalsifiable), but perhaps there's value in it anyway.

Yes, I think it's an idea worth entertaining that this universe we find ourselves in is a bubble, in a sea of other unique non interacting bubbles. — flannel jesus

It's very meta to be able to even imagine that.
Because in an existence where everything is possible - there would be universesor bubbles that never consider the multiverse theory in the first place. Those that do but don't have any interaction with other multiverses, and yet more that somehow find a way to interact with them or even transmigrate between them (like the film everything everywhere all at once).

To imagine an existence with pure potential for absolutely any form or variation, any possibility, is one where imagination is essentially someones, somewheres "reality". Ie anything you can imagine already exists in some alternate reality.

That lends itself to an interesting approach to imagination and fiction. Perhaps instead of being pure imagination and fiction, it is instead the ability of creatives and artists in our local universe to somehow perceive the realities of other universes. Every dream in this case would be a sort of out of body experience of another world. An impart of information about one of the other bubbles.

Perhaps each of us has a unique imagination- or access to any given number of multiverses

are you already aware of any attempts by other thinkers to formalize or semi formalize these ideas?

of course. I know this is not a knew thought in academic philosophy. However I think when "all limits are gone", all arguments fall so so short of what such a proposition would actually mean for us. Imagination is afterall, infinite in scope.

Which of those attempts at formalization resonate with you most?

Simple example: 500 years ago, were iPhones possible? — Benj96

Yes. I have factored in everything you've outlined, and it doesn't touch my objection.

A extant 'world' cannot also not exist, and still instantiate any properties (such as existing). So, one or other of these options violates the 'possibility' condition.