Is anything impossible? — Andrew4Handel

Here's an old 4 pp. thread which might interest you.

How about an elephant hanging over a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy?

How about the question: does God love a thing because it is good, or is it good because God loves it? Presumably one can be ruled out - but which?

Presumably one can be ruled out — alan1000

If there is no God then they can both be ruled out. If God is of necessity good then they can both be ruled in. (Compare: are two lines parallel because they never meet or do they never meet because they are parallel?)

That's enough ruling out and ruling in for one post.

How about an elephant hanging over a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy? — alan1000

Easy. The elephant is hanging over the cliff secured by stout and strong cables and also with its tail tied to a daisy. The question is not "How is this possible?" but "Who would do that to an elephant?"

*****
On reflection, I think it's impossible to tie an elephant's tail to a daisy. You would always end up tying the daisy to the elephant's tail. What you do with the elephant after that is a matter for your conscience.

For example is an afterlife ruled out? — Andrew4Handel

No evidence to suggest there will be an afterlife, and why would anybody desire one?

Is creation ruled out? — Andrew4Handel

No, even from the perspective of the laws of physics, everything was created with, by, and in those strictures.

Are idealism or solipsism impossible? — Andrew4Handel

Idealism is supposed to be impossible, it provides a consitent aim to reach for asymptotically. Solipsism is nonsense, you can tell because I'm typing to you. No shit.

Is an amoral reality possible? — Andrew4Handel

No, the human mind is a natural concept generating entity that produces concepts specifically for reconfiguring behavior and thought to produce better outcomes. Which is what ethics is. Even sucide is a concept within the mind of the individual committing the deed which is determined to be the best course of action for that person. There's no escaping the ethical domain once one develops the requiste sophistication to occupy space within it.

Are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits. — Andrew4Handel

Yes. For example A=A is a tautology, and a begging the question fallacy. But, get this: its absolutely true. A can is a can. A human is a human. A dog is a dog. And A is A. Limitations are what allows for reality to even exist. Reality is comprised of all kinds of matter and energy and quanta all acting together under the strictures of the universe that are non-suspending. So, just get to work and see what you can't break the limitations on using your mind.

No evidence to suggest there will be an afterlife, and why would anybody desire one? — Garrett Travers

There are actually lots of anecdotal accounts of near death experience.

There obvious reasons why people would want an afterlife. I don't see why you would struggle to think of any.

There are versions of reality that would allow for an afterlife for example other dimensions, idealism and solipsism, the notion of consciousness as separate from but interacting with the brain.

I was interested in what facts would make something impossible not whether evidence exists for something.

Solipsism is nonsense, you can tell because I'm typing to you. No shit. — Garrett Travers

How do I know you are not a creation of my imagination? A dream? It takes more effort than that to refute it.

Because you are using your mind to investigate the question, using senses produced by your body, which can be felt and verified, with another body (me) doing the same and providing you verification in that inquiry. Plus, there's no reason to believe that your brain is capable of projecting a fake reality, when all evidence that exists suggest reality is real and has created you through evolutionary processes to detect it as a means to extend your life. If your brain was producing a false reality, you would be killed in no time flat. And, no, it doesn't take more than my original statement to prove it. I am not you and I responded to an actual message from you, which you really saw, and proved both of our existence by responding with a further question. Solipsism is nonsense.

Limitations are what allows for reality to even exist — Garrett Travers

This might not be true.

"In the metaphysics of identity, the Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

Reality could be forever fluctuating. For example you can have a pet dog, a drawing of your dog, a computer graphic of your dog and a photo of your dog and you still recognise the dog in different mediums. What is what we experience doesn't necessarily have to be consistent just present the same identity.

Before the radio, television, airplanes, internet etc these would have seemed impossible to exist and did to some including Lord Kelvin physicist who said “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”.

Obviously human creativity and innovation has yet to hit a brick wall.

There are actually lots of anecdotal accounts of near death experience. — Andrew4Handel

Anecdotal reports are not evidence.

There obvious reasons why people would want an afterlife. I don't see why you would struggle to think of any. — Andrew4Handel

What are they? Can't imagine why one would desire such, other than as a means to espace this one.

There are versions of reality that would allow for an afterlife for example other dimensions, idealism and solipsism, the notion of consciousness as separate from but interacting with the brain. — Andrew4Handel

There would need to be evidence of this. As it stands, the whole of research from cognitive neuroscience suggests that consciousness is produced by the brain, meaning there is no separation between them.

I was interested in what facts would make something impossible not whether evidence exists for something. — Andrew4Handel

Facts associated with phenomena are required to inform such a conclusion to be formed.

One idea of an imaginary possibility which is unlikely but not cannot be ruled out is that of time's arrow reversing. I came across it in ' The Death of Forever: A New Future For Human Consciousness' by Darryl Reanney.The book is a contemplation of time and eternity and he thinks that it cannot be ruled out that time's arrow could reverse and history occur backwards. It was also the theme of Martin Amis novel, 'Time' s Arrow' which is an interesting fictional tale of characters' lives in reverse. It is a bit of a mind boggling idea and I have to admit thinking about Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence and how it would work as a fantastic possibility...

This might not be true. — Andrew4Handel

No, it may not. You cannot live in space. That's because you are confined to exist within the domain of the restrictions placed on you through evolution and the systems associated with this particular planet.

In the metaphysics of identity, the Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether an object that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. — Andrew4Handel

A reconfigured representation of the same object by design, but the objects that made the original constitute the original. A=A. A =/= identical to A, except all of the objects that constitute A. In that case you're speaking about forms, rather than literal identity.

Reality could be forever fluctuating. For example you can have a pet dog, a drawing of your dog, a computer graphic of your dog and a photo of your dog and you still recognise the dog in different mediums. What is what we experience doesn't necessarily have to be consistent just present the same identity. — Andrew4Handel

All of those are different things, that's why each of them can be distinguished. A does not ever stop being A.

heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible” — Andrew4Handel

Previously wrong statements of fact do not constitute an argument, or evidence of a hypothesis that is entirely unrelated.

Obviously human creativity and innovation has yet to hit a brick wall. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, but it has to be generated in tandem with reality and the laws that govern it.

I was interested in what facts would make something impossible not whether evidence exists for something


It's impossible for an immovable object to exist in the presence of an irresistible force.

For me, more serious impossibilities would include:
A human virgin birth.
Feeding 5 thousand people with a loaf and two fishes.
Raising the dead.
Fitting people and two of every lifeform in existence into an ark and surviving a global flood.
Making the Sun stop spinning without all the planets flying off into space.
Every so-called miracle the theists say actually happened.

Oh, I also agree with 'solipsism is nonsense.'

Anecdotal reports are not evidence. — Garrett Travers

I am referring to personal evidence from the private realm/sphere of someone's mind. Just because an experience is private or had alone does not make it untrue or not evidence.

I don't know what evidence you would accept for the afterlife.

I have never heard voices like a schizophrenic but I have to accept that they do or just be sceptical of what anyone says about their mental states or events that I didn't witness.

For me, more serious impossibilities would include:
Feeding 5 thousand people with a loaf and two fishes — universeness

What if the loaves of bread and fish were all huge?

You just need a huge oven and very big fish.

A human virgin birth. — universeness

Maybe a genetic mutation could cause some kind of self fertilisation but then I suppose the woman would cease to be a true human.

Every so-called miracle the theists say actually happened. — universeness

I think theist stories are fictional but not necessarily physically impossible.

Can't imagine why one would desire such, other than as a means to escape this one. — Garrett Travers

Personally I don't like the idea of permanently ceasing to exist. If you aren't suicidal I don't see why you would welcome the cessation of existence?

What about the cessation of existence of the universe? I suppose you welcome the postulated heat death of the universe?

It's impossible for an immovable object to exist in the presence of an irresistible force. — universeness

That's good. I'll have to think about that one.

Yes, but it has to be generated in tandem with reality and the laws that govern it. — Garrett Travers

But the existence of new entities like the internet and radios reveals that we don't know what is ruled out and what laws exactly exist. These things and others are called emergent properties which are not predicted by physics.

You may be treating the laws of physics like theological commandments rather than scientific formulae that await exceptions or modulations.

The failure of physics and the rest of science to account for consciousness our only access to reality is consciousness) is a big whole and the materialistic project.

One idea of an imaginary possibility which is unlikely but not cannot be ruled out is that of time's arrow reversing. — Jack Cummins

This depends on whether we have an accurate definition of time.

I feel that once something has happened it has permanently happened so I am not sure what time reversal means.

For example say I am hit by a car and badly injured, time somehow reverses and the process reverses I am not longer hit by the car but it did happen somewhere at some time and I would still have the memory of it. There seems to be a link between memory and the arrow of time and also causal necessity I suppose making causes unidirectional.

Yes, it is probably unlikely that time reversal could happen as a real possibility because it would involve the reverse chains of causality. It would sort of mean that the injury of the car crash would have to then happen backwards with the crash being later. However, the book was well written and as far as the memory aspects that is more complex because it involves aspects of knowledge being outside of time, from the perspective of eternity. That would make sense in terms of precognitive experiences because it would be about people being able to perceive beyond 3 dimensional world experience.

But the existence of new entities like the internet and radios reveals that we don't know what is ruled out and what laws exactly exist. These things and others are called emergent properties which are not predicted by physics.

You may be treating the laws of physics like theological commandments rather than scientific formulae that await exceptions or modulations.

The failure of physics and the rest of science to account for consciousness our only access to reality is consciousness) is a big whole and the materialistic project. — Andrew4Handel

Cognitive neuroscience accounts for consciousness as it currently stands. The brain produces consciouness. And again, the realm of could be's unknown is not evidence to suggest what laws are well known are somehow able to be negated.

Is anything ruled out and why? — Andrew4Handel

If the proposition "nothing is ruled out" is true, then the proposition "nothing is ruled out" is an exception to this. "Nothing ruled out except the current proposition", perhaps.

Impossibilities:

1. Physically impossible: No human, without the aid of machines, can lift the rock of Gibraltar (Long live the Queen). Time-limited (enhanced humans, like superheroes, may be able to pull it of in the future).

2. Technologically impossible: A manned mission to the dwarf planet Pluto is out of the question. Time limited (as we discover new technologies, we may be able to send a man/men to Pluto).

3. Logically impossible: A contradiction (p & ~p) is impossible. Married bachelor! Time limited?

4. Left to the reader as an exercise.

For example

is an afterlife ruled out?
Is creation ruled out?
Are idealism or solipsism impossible?
Is an amoral reality possible?
Are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits? — Andrew4Handel

An afterlife can't be ruled out and the question is better posed as,: is life here as the only life ruled out?

How can creation be ruled out?

Some people are idealists or solipsists. A rather weird and selfish, and lonely belief but still.

Men without morals exist.

If there are logical, theoretical, or empirical limits, depends on the subject they are applied to.

For example i

s an afterlife ruled out?
Is creation ruled out?
Are idealism or solipsism impossible?
Is an amoral reality possible?
Are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits. — Andrew4Handel

Afterlife can't be ruled out. Maybe it's better to ask: can a single isolated life be ruled ou?

Creation can't be ruled out and is even the only option left when the gaps are closed.

There are idealists and solipsists, so the logical conclusion is that they are not impossible.

There are men without moral. Thus, amoral reality is possible.

If there are there logical, theoretical or empirical limits depends on the subjects you apply them to.

No evidence to suggest there will be an afterlife, and why would anybody desire one? — Garrett Travers

No evidence points at the contrary. So why rule it out?

Idealism is supposed to be impossible, it provides a consitent aim to reach for asymptotically. Solipsism is nonsense, you can tell because I'm typing to you. No shit. — Garrett Travers

And still there are idealists and solipsists.

No, the human mind is a natural concept generating entity — Garrett Travers

No. Men or women without morals exist.

Yes. — Garrett Travers

No. It depends to what the rules are applied.

What if the loaves of bread and fish were all huge?
You just need a huge oven and very big fish. — Andrew4Handel

I think you are struggling here.
If they were actually feeding on a whale shark then I think they would have at least reported a very big fish and I don't think they were capable of making loaves that size and if what you suggest is true then it's unlikely it would have been reported at all, as if these the large food items you said are common practice when feeding a gathering of 5000 people then that would just be 'having lunch.'
But I agree with your comment that theist stories are just that, stories!

No evidence points at the contrary. So why rule it out? — Schootz1

Argument from ignorance.

And still there are idealists and solipsists. — Schootz1

Just as there are Platonists and Kantians, that doesn't mean it's any less foolish.

No. Men or women without morals exist. — Schootz1

No, they do not. Only men and women with moral codes that lead them in the right direction, or the wrong one. The moral code of no moral code is still just that, a moral code. Humans are concept generators. Concepts are ethical functions in nature. Whether your moral code is evil or not, that's something I'll know by its fruit, as it were.

No. It depends to what the rules are applied. — Schootz1

This sentence says "No. Yes."

If the proposition "nothing is ruled out" is true, then the proposition "nothing is ruled out" is an exception to this. "Nothing ruled out except the current proposition", perhaps. — _db

Hehah, see how reality kills irrational approaches? Reality negates its negation. The beauty of consistency.