Can Anything Be Possible & Impossible at Same Time?

[CozmicScott]

You have some really good argument here joe, but you are comparing apples to oranges. I'm not saying it's possible or impossible that they r both a fruit. I'm saying they are only one fruit @ a given time here, and not somewhere else ie: another galaxy. If you performed an observation on an apple and an orange, and one changed to the other then it was always possible, never impossible to begin with. Key word here I think is change, or let's say transformation. It could not be possible @ impossible @ the same time, any given time anywhere for an apple to be an orange;it has to be possible or impossible not both because the second it would change/transform would make one of the terms (possible /impossible) true , and the other false. If the state of something changes then it's not what is was meaning it takes on new properties, and becomes new ,and different not the same. Is it really possible for an apple to be an apple, and impossible for an apple to be an apple @the same time; providing everyone agreed on what an apple is precisley? 1+1 apple= 2apples. It's not possible, and,or impossible@ the same time in any galaxy I know of that 1apple+1apple= 3 apples. And if it is then change has occurred giving it it's own new state of in which it cannot again be possible or impossible @ the same time only one or the other. Once a change of possibility occurs the Other should be false, resulting in a whole new situation that one cannot "be", and "notbe" @ the same time ,and if they did change occurred giving a new base for the Question. I'm going to confuse myself her in a min. thanks for ideas joe I'm still pondering what u have said. Maybe I am using bad examples, or words here but, It seems easier then way I've been trying too explain it maybe? Looking to hereing from you.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

I dunno, thought my idea worked better. I can see the point on how apples can be converted from apples to oranges, but extra variables are needed, like in order to convert apples into oranges, you need more electrolytes for starters. Not to mention a billion $ to buy, and use the machine that can do that, but yea it's possible as of right now. They aren't the same, they could be just potentially converted.
Again, fruit is classification, not so much definition.

 

[JoeDawg]

We run into all kinds of contradictions, because our logic is based on imperfect observation AND we tend to assume the universe is consistent. Rand claimed all kinds of things that philosophers generally tend to ignore, and for good reason.

Also, the fact perfect knowledge isn't required for someone to take action, has nothing whatever to do with whether that action can be rationally justified. There is no rational justification for induction. Hume called it a habit, something we do, something we really can't avoid doing, but still not rational, and its been a problem ever since.

If you performed an observation on an apple and an orange, and one changed to the other then it was always possible, never impossible

Problem is, you'd never know what was impossible, since you could always run into that situation tomorrow. So, saying something is impossible is mere opinion and is just not very useful.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Wait, I thought you were trying to say impossibilities were plausible?

 

[JoeDawg]

Wait, I thought you were trying to say impossibilities were plausible?

"Impossible" is an opinion, nothing more.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Alright, good, TY for your expressions.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

This got an insane amount of views.

 

[CozmicScott]

"Impossible" is an opinion, nothing more.

I have too disagree with this statement Joe. Impossible is more than an opinion. Example: The statement that I can turn Water in too Gold with a Teaspoon of salt is false. Thus making it impossible for now until the year maybe 2335. Who knows.:) For now it is impossible through that method, and more than a mere opinion. In today's world I believe most would agree with my statement, and for now anyways until chemistry or physics changes, or we can find a way to munipulate certain laws of science I would say it's more than just an opinion. Also if we do find a way to do this, then it was always possible to begin with, thus having truly been never been impossible at all, and only one of the two most definitly. There could be other ways to turn water too gold but salt is probably not one of them So are my statements merely opinion At this point, or do You think science would back my statements?

 

[JoeDawg]

In today's world I believe most would agree with my statement

The fact that an opinion is shared, doesn't make it any less an opinion. Nor does it imply value or lack thereof. Its the context of the opinion that gives it value.

Once, the commonly held opinion was that the Earth was the center of the universe. This was supported by the 'science' of the day. Consensus is still opinion. And induction is still without a rational basis. And yes, that is problematic for science. It doesn't mean we should stop doing science, it simply shows the limit of science. This is not so important for a biologist working in a lab, but when one is asking the bigger questions, its unavoidable.

So are my statements merely opinion At this point, or do You think science would back my statements?

Science deals with the observable and the probable. The possible and impossible are not addressed by science.

 

[CozmicScott]

The fact that an opinion is shared, doesn't make it any less an opinion. Nor does it imply value or lack thereof. Its the context of the opinion that gives it value.

Once, the commonly held opinion was that the Earth was the center of the universe. This was supported by the 'science' of the day. Consensus is still opinion. And induction is still without a rational basis. And yes, that is problematic for science. It doesn't mean we should stop doing science, it simply shows the limit of science. This is not so important for a biologist working in a lab, but when one is asking the bigger questions, its unavoidable.



Science deals with the observable and the probable. The possible and impossible are not addressed by science.

2 or more people can agree on things, and create consensus still having fact involved, thus leaving more than just a mere opinion. I think the factin such consensus leaves us with more than opinion. How are the possible and, impossible not addressed in science? We can observe things that will happen if key word here they are (possible), and we could also say if something is "not "probable them chances are they could be impossible. But never both at the same time. It is , or is not.

 

[CozmicScott]

Also the "limit of science" you speak of. If there is one. Would not that statement haft to be "possible", or "not possible? If not it's like saying it could have no limit, and limit at the same time. There is either limit or no limit for me. Not both.

 

[Office_Shredder]

2 or more people can agree on things, and create consensus still having fact involved, thus leaving more than just a mere opinion. I think the factin such consensus leaves us with more than opinion.

An opinion can be factually supported without losing its classification as an opinion

How are the possible and, impossible not addressed in science? We can observe things that will happen if key word here they are (possible), and we could also say if something is "not "probable them chances are they could be impossible. But never both at the same time. It is , or is not.

Science is never capable of determining that something is "impossible", especially if you allow for new abstract techniques involving future technology. Science uses observations in order to help develop a model to make predictions about future events. It doesn't make predictions about what new technology will be capable of, although based on what we know and don't know, we can form opinions, based on science, as to what may and may not be possible, but this wouldn't be science.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

We run into all kinds of contradictions, because our logic is based on imperfect observation AND we tend to assume the universe is consistent. Rand claimed all kinds of things that philosophers generally tend to ignore, and for good reason.

Ummm... really? Have you ever studied what happened with Rand? Her husband died, when she was starting the objectivist movement, and she went emo, and hid, ending the movement. They ignore her, because they're too preoccupied with altruistic theories to see the life that there was, and will be.

 

[CozmicScott]

Thx all for posts, very interesting. The thing about Rand too SethoScott I did not know going to read more on that thx.

 

[JoeDawg]

They ignore her, because they're too preoccupied with altruistic theories to see the life that there was, and will be.

Right, because if you find Altas Shrugged poorly written, and philosophical pablum, you're a looter...and an altruist.

sigh.

 

[Russell Berty]

We run into all kinds of contradictions, because our logic is based on imperfect observation AND we tend to assume the universe is consistent.

Also, the fact perfect knowledge isn't required for someone to take action, has nothing whatever to do with whether that action can be rationally justified. There is no rational justification for induction. Hume called it a habit, something we do, something we really can't avoid doing, but still not rational, and its been a problem ever since.

So you do agree that certainty is not absolute, even with "thinking exists." There is still room for doubt when claiming "thinking exists."

 

[JoeDawg]

So you do agree that certainty is not absolute, even with "thinking exists." There is still room for doubt when claiming "thinking exists."

'Absolute' is an abstraction, applying it to experience is a category error.

Thinking exists. This is self-evident.

You can doubt whatever you like.
Doubting what is self-evident is dishonest.

 

[Russell Berty]

'Absolute' is an abstraction, applying it to experience is a category error.

Thinking exists. This is self-evident.

You can doubt whatever you like.
Doubting what is self-evident is dishonest.

What do you mean by “self-evident”? If you say “p is self-evident” does that mean that the truth of p is beyond all doubt? Please define "self-evident".

 

[junglebeast]

Can anything be possilble and impossible @ the same time? I say no. It might have been one or the other @ different times, for some people. In all my logic tells me: that, but of course it has only been one of the two the whole time no matter how people have pecieved what's possible or impossible. IN all I say that possible and impossible are never capable of occurring @the same time. I have other people trying to tell me otherwise. anyone like too add their thoughts on this kinda goffy ? ?

By definition these words are mutually exclusive. There's nothing philosophical about that. It's just the definition.

 

[JoeDawg]

Please define "self-evident".

LOL

Ok, here, this may help you... if not... good luck.

Bertrand Russell, Problems of Philosophy
http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus2.html

Descartes (1596-1650), the founder of modern philosophy, invented a method which may still be used with profit -- the method of systematic doubt. He determined that he would believe nothing which he did not see quite clearly and distinctly to be true. Whatever he could bring himself to doubt, he would doubt, until he saw reason for not doubting it. By applying this method he gradually became convinced that the only existence of which he could be quite certain was own. He imagined a deceitful demon, who presented unreal things to his senses in a perpetual phantasmagoria; it might be very improbable that such a demon existed, but still it was possible, and therefore doubt concerning things perceived by the senses was possible.

But doubt concerning his own existence was not possible, for if he did not exist, no demon could deceive him. If he doubted, he must exist; if he had any experiences whatever, he must exist. Thus his own existence was an absolute certainty to him. 'I think, therefore I am, ' he said (Cogito, ergo sum); and on the basis of this certainty he set to work to build up again the world of knowledge which his doubt had laid in ruins. By inventing the method of doubt, and by showing that subjective things are the most certain, Descartes performed a great service to philosophy, and one which makes him still useful to all students of the subject.