Can Anything Be Possible & Impossible at Same Time?

[CozmicScott]

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 ? ?

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

To state that items are possible/impossible, is unreasonable, as Ayn Rand stated in her novel, "ATLAS SHRUGGED," a theory that states that there are no contradictions, just resistance. For example, it was once "impossible" for man to fly, however he built a machine to over come the resistance of that fact, and now can fly. Of course, someone will contradict me by saying, "man himself cannot fly," but that too, will come to pass. Anything is possible, from a generalized view, but if you stare too long at the close-minded, dogmatic view, you will find that there are contradictions. It just depends if you want to be right in the end, or while you're still alive. In all reality, anything is possible. You just have to recompose your premises.

 

[CompuChip]

I suppose I could say that, mathematically, A and (not A) is a contradiction (i.e. falsum).

But usually on a philosophy forum my remarks are ignored and/or irrelevant and/or way too simple.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Well, from the perspective that there's a -A, but not a (not A) as that could symbolize anything else. However, -A isn't possible, because there is A, there is no need, want, or creation of -A, as -A doesn't serve a purpose, conciously, or incounciously. That, and
-A won't be here at the end of the day, so it is not a true contradiction, it is not truly a destroyer of A, because it won't work. I believe a contradiction is a answer that contradicts a system, such as, though it's not correct, 2+2=5, but this won't work, however, this is not to be mistaken with, 2+2=2(2), as they are the same numerical value, thus being the same answer, in value, and do not contradit each other. Like I'm saying, there aren't any destroyers, as everything serves a purpose, it doesn't just bluntly destroy, there are, however, things that just create. I'm not sure, though.

THIS REPLY IS PURELY THEORETICAL, AND MAY NOT BE OF ANY USE OF ALL, I'D BE LYING IF I SAID I KNEW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Ohhh, and you can't remover matter from the world, you can only rearrange it, so it's like saying there's a negative land mass, on this quantum frequency, I do not believe it is possible to completely destroy the matter that,that land was composed of.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Your response is appreciated, there's just a wrong answer, and a right answer. It isn't impossible to stray from the right answer, in fact, it is easy, and some express the right answer in a very inappropriate matter, but to be taken seriously, in an apathetic vew of emotions, you can't go around calling a fellow phylosophist an idiot, so I will appreciate the attempt, but I believe that in the natural order of things, and the way man can work best in, there is only creation, not a coexistence of destruction, or contradiction, just power.

 

[CozmicScott]

All I am really trying to say is that if something was once impossible as we understood but then was proven wrong then it was really possilble to begin with, in which it was never impossible to begin with thus nothing can really be possible , and impossible @ the same time or ever really. Is this a fair staement?

 

[CozmicScott]

It in all logic sense must either be one or the other right or wrong?

 

[CompuChip]

Not necessarily. Some logicians, like intuitionists, do not accept the law of the excluded middle.

However, you were initially asking about A and (not A), and now you are talking about A or (not A) .

 

[CozmicScott]

ok impossible or possilble A or not A they cannot be both correct? I'm having trouble finding a middle ground that makes logical sense. thanks for the law of excluded middle compuchip never read that before. This still seems a little cloudy for me. then again could just be me.:)

 

[Brilliant!]

At any given point in time, contradictions can not exist. To make a very basic example: At this very moment, I am a man. I can only deduce that I will be a man in the next, but there is no way for me to know for certain. But as I am in this moment, I can not be anything else.

Also, you should make as little use of the word "impossible" as you can. Adopt the line of thinking that says "On a long enough timeline, anything is possible."

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Dude did you get that from Rand?

 

[Brilliant!]

The line of thinking or the quote? Her books, fiction and non-fiction, have had a large impact on my life, but what I've said seems like common sense to me. And the quote is just something that I thought up, but could be thought of by anyone.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Still pretty good. I was trying to say that, got out of the loop this summer.

 

[Brilliant!]

Thanks

 

[CozmicScott]

thX. I believe, and would like to think anything is possible, but my question was based on my own assumptions that if in fact a possibility occurs; then it was never impossible to begin with therefore proving it counld'nt have ever been both @the same time nor ever will it. Example= it would be like saying I can melt steel @ 88 degreeF. That's physically impossible unless we change melting temps of metals some crazy way that I don't think can happen any time soon. Therfore it's impossible for "Now" , and I think it's safe too say for a long time anyway that it will never be possible to melt steel as we know it @ 88 degreeF Therefore It cannot be possilble, or IMpossible @ the same time. After saying that if anyone can do it then it was possible to begin with and the latter is true still. Thx Brilliant.

 

[Brilliant!]

NP. By the way, in your example you've changed the melting point of steel. If we take the most basic form of steel, which is carbon steel, we are dealing with a metal that melts at around 1370 C. Changing the melting point of steel from 1370 C to roughly 31 C would mean changing the chemical properties of the metal altogether, leaving you with something that is not steel, but some derivative thereof. In other words, steel is your "A", and the low-melting point derivative of steel is your "not A". And you still haven't come up with a contradiction.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Well, like I was saying, you want to be right now, or when you're dead?

 

[CozmicScott]

Thx I can understand that. If you could just help me covince my wife.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

*shrug*

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

I dunno, like... just... have you tried to explain the correlation of the world from past tense, all the way through future tense? That this is still the same world, just reorganized? Recomposed?

 

[JoeDawg]

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 ? ?

I think your problem here is that you are confusing common language (english) with more formal language, ie logic and mathematics.

In logic and mathematics you can provide proofs with reasoning. Deductive, Inductive etc...

But this has nothing to do with the common usage of the word 'impossible', which as far as I know has no formal definition. That is, the fact people say x is impossible is no different from them saying they can't believe/imagine x is true. You can't scientifically call something impossible, only observed or not observed, probable or improbable.

As to the Rand nonsense, identity is a matter of definition, so x is only x to the degree that you have a definition of x. If you don't define your premises, or even fail to define them correctly, then no amount of logic will save you or give you something that is not contradictory. Add to that, the logic you use will be based on your experience and you are left with the same old nasty problem of induction.

Schrodingers cat is a good example of this, since in that situation you actually have 3 choices: x, notx, xandnotx. Now this only appears to be the case on the quantum level, but the point is, we form systems of logic based on our observations, change the context of those observations in a radical fashion and our current logic will likely fail.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
As many as want to..."

 

[CozmicScott]

I'm not confusing English with anything. I see things on a; it can be, or it can not basis. it is what it is, and if it ever becomes possible to be otherwise then it therefore was always possible , and was never anything else to begin with. I would like to believe all things are possible , but as you said is it probable? How hi is the probability something can or cannot be impossible. Surely something is impossible in the universe? Who knows. I'm also sure that through observation, and reasoning this could be proven as well. When I say one truth is available , and not another I mean through observation that surley something cannot be possible, and , or impossible infinitly @ the same time. There has been some discussion here , and you all have me thinking a lil bit more about how to approach what it think I'm trying too say. Thx

 

[CozmicScott]

I think your problem here is that you are confusing common language (english) with more formal language, ie logic and mathematics.

In logic and mathematics you can provide proofs with reasoning. Deductive, Inductive etc...

But this has nothing to do with the common usage of the word 'impossible', which as far as I know has no formal definition. That is, the fact people say x is impossible is no different from them saying they can't believe/imagine x is true. You can't scientifically call something impossible, only observed or not observed, probable or improbable.

As to the Rand nonsense, identity is a matter of definition, so x is only x to the degree that you have a definition of x. If you don't define your premises, or even fail to define them correctly, then no amount of logic will save you or give you something that is not contradictory. Add to that, the logic you use will be based on your experience and you are left with the same old nasty problem of induction.

Schrodingers cat is a good example of this, since in that situation you actually have 3 choices: x, notx, xandnotx. Now this only appears to be the case on the quantum level, but the point is, we form systems of logic based on our observations, change the context of those observations in a radical fashion and our current logic will likely fail.

"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
As many as want to..."

"not" possible?

 

[JoeDawg]

"not" possible?

Problem of induction.

 

[CozmicScott]

Problem of induction.

I don't see induction fitting in the way I'm seeing this. An apple is an apple, and an orange an orange. Surley they could not be the same ever @ one time, and if they could then there would be only one outcome; one possibility. I'm not sure I believe In inductive reasoning just yet if ever, thanks for the answers I'm reading more about it now lots of deep stuff under induction too read about.

 

[CozmicScott]

If an apple , and an orange could ever be the same @ one time, it was always possible anyways , and therefore having one possibility only. JUst because we did'nt obeserve it , or It could be otherwise when we don't, doesn't mean it's inductive does it really? What 's going to be is going to be no matter what we think, true?

 

[JoeDawg]

There are two things going on here, you are talking about identity on the one hand, and whether something in another place and/or time could be different.

Identity is about definition.

Apple = Fruit
Orange = Fruit
Therefore Apple = Orange

Now, one could then argue that apples and oranges are distinct, but in the same set; the set of fruits. But the point is, this would be true based on a definition.

Otherwise you couldn't even say Orange = Orange, because they are separate instances of similar objects. This is essentially what you are saying, only with less detail, when you say Apple = Orange.

That said, even assuming the premise that apple has the attribute notOrange, while it may seem unlikely that this will change, as a human being one has to admit to imperfect knowledge, so while it may be unlikely that our understanding of identity will change, it is still possible.

This has actually happened many times in the history of science. Think about how light can act as both a wave and a particle. Essentially, we used to think that wave = notparticle. But now we know that matter can exhibit both wave-like properties and particle-like properties.


So what is possible in the future? What is possible in another galaxy? Induction is about extrapolating from observed phenomena to unobserved phenomena. We do this all the time, but we really have no justification for it.

Further, science is based on the idea that the universe is consistent, but again we don't have a justification for believing this. What prevents an apple from becoming an orange? Well, its never happened before.

But then we have the story of the chicken. Everyday the chicken would see the farmer, and everyday, the farmer would bring food. Farmer = bringer of food. This is was true, day after day, year after year, right up until the day the farmer brought an axe. And the chicken learned that no matter how much evidence you accumulate, things can change rather quickly and unexpectedly, when you don't know the whole story.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

The Ayn Rand theories on contradiction don't have anything to do with what you stated (JoeDawg): They only deal with the fact that contrdictions don't exist. Your statement you said earlier:

As to the Rand nonsense, identity is a matter of definition, so x is only x to the degree that you have a definition of x. If you don't define your premises, or even fail to define them correctly, then no amount of logic will save you or give you something that is not contradictory. Add to that, the logic you use will be based on your experience and you are left with the same old nasty problem of induction.

The idea that if we don't know everything about something, we can't use , understand, or let it work, is completely false. We just can use it up until it breaks without proper knowledge.

 

[SETHOSCOTT]

Apple = Fruit
Orange = Fruit
Therefore Apple = Orange

It's the same thing with every rectangle being a square. It's false just because of what you said: definition. So is the above statement.