Yep. This seems to be tripping a few people up.

It doesn't matter how many people can conceive of a thing or how smart they must be. All that matters is that some mind, somewhere, sometime, and somehow can conceive of that thing.

Here you are confusing "something that is logically contradictory" with the concept of being logically contradictory. I am referring to a directly perceivable thing that is logically contradictory, not the notion itself.

About the concern over definitions, I'm only assuming some default stance with respect to coneceivability. I am asking answerers to assume that what I mean by 'x is conceivable' is 'x can be thought of/x is perceivable'. It is a definition to be assumed in answering the question. Whether or not one thinks this is a definition that accurately models what conceivability is or not does not matter to me. If you prefer, simply eliminate all trace of conceivability from my original question and replace it with 'x can be thought of/x is perceivable'. It may be an issue that there may be no precise consensus as to what it means to be thought of or to be perceivable, but that would be a separate issue.
You'll notice I didn't define what it means to be possible anywhere, so I am open for some room to interpretation. However, I have already explained that simply positing a definition of possibility in which it is assumed that things exist independent of our thoughts begs the question, so at least this interpretation is not permissible. Why does it beg the question? Because I defined conceivability in terms of what can be thought of. Hence it is obvious to say that if something is possible 'independent of whatever we think about it' assumes that there is a world in which there is no one around to conceive (think of) yet we can still say that things are possible (or not).

Again, I'm still waiting on your response to my point #2 from 3 posts ago (I think) in our conversation.

It doesn't matter how many people can conceive of a thing or how smart they must be. All that matters is that some mind, somewhere, sometime, and somehow can conceive of that thing.

I don't understand your question then. If you're hypothesizing that there can be a mind that has infinite comprehension, then it's logically entailed that such a mind be able to conceive anything that is possible.

If your question is, though, whether the actual most complex event can be comprehended by the actual most complex mind, then the answer is empirical, and it seems to be the answer is no because there are all sorts of things that are not currently comprehended.

Here you are confusing "something that is logically contradictory" with the concept of being logically contradictory. I am referring to a directly perceivable thing that is logically contradictory, not the notion itself. — maplestreet

Here you are showing that you didn't actually comprehend the phrase "Something logically contradictory being instantiated materially," but nevertheless, you didn't care that you didn't comprehend it.

I have already explained that simply positing a definition of possibility in which it is assumed that things exist independent of our thoughts begs the question, — maplestreet

And once again when you say this, it's as if you're hainging a sandwich board on yourself announcing "I don't actually know what 'question-begging' conventionally refers to.'"

I was just going by your comment: "This suggests that you agree that there could be things that exist, which haven't yet been conceived of (but Could eventually be conceived of)." I wouldn't know how to read that so that it's not talking about the future--re "haven't yet" and "could eventually be conceived of."

Another thing to consider: in the instances above, the things were conceived of before they were created (I think). I may not have conceived of unknown film scripts, etc before I was aware of their existence... but Someone did conceive of them, and Then created them. — anonymous66

Yeah, people conceive of them first--or at least while their in the earliest, rough-sketch etc. phases of them, but that's why I said in the next couple years. A lot of things will be created--some of it by me, as I make my living with music, including doing some film music--where the people who will create it haven't conceived of it in any guise yet.

So your's is a common point of confusion and I can relate because I did not understand myself not all that long ago, and I made the same mistaken assumption as yourself.
Here is a good break down of godel incompleteness that might help with your confusion.

There is the classic idea of a contradiction like the liar paradox.
"This statement is false."
And you can play with the axioms of a formal system so that you can avoid the possibility of constructing these type of contradictions within that system.
But godel also illustrates a different kind of statement that is subtly different in formal terms.
It looks more like.
"This statement is unprovable."

What godel showed, as a consequence of incompleteness, is that you can construct an unprovable type of statement in any formal language.
There are plenty of examples of unprovable statements that can be used as axioms.

... A statement is independent of ZFC (sometimes phrased "undecidable in ZFC") if it can neither be proven nor disproven from the axioms of ZFC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_statements_independent_of_ZFC
Undecidability as a computer science term is an extension of incompleteness applied to the particular synatx (formal language) of computation.

I disagree with you that undecidability and/or incompleteness have nothing to do with inconceivability/incomprehensibility.
In my opinion inconceivability is simply an informal way of referring to this formal concept.

Hi. Sorry, I haven't read any of the previous posts, just the original question.

Buddhism would say that stuff exists and does not exist at the same time. We are dreaming up a reality.