# Is This Possible?

1. Mar 1, 2009

### 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 occuring @the same time. I have other people trying to tell me otherwise. anyone like too add their thoughts on this kinda goffy ? ?????

2. Mar 1, 2009

### 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.

3. Mar 1, 2009

### 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.

4. Mar 1, 2009

### 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.

5. Mar 1, 2009

### 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.

6. Mar 1, 2009

### 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.

7. Mar 1, 2009

### 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?

8. Mar 1, 2009

### CozmicScott

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

9. Mar 1, 2009

### 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) .

10. Mar 3, 2009

### 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. thx 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.:)

11. Mar 3, 2009

### 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."

Last edited: Mar 3, 2009
12. Mar 3, 2009

### SETHOSCOTT

Dude did you get that from Rand?

13. Mar 3, 2009

### 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.

14. Mar 3, 2009

### SETHOSCOTT

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

15. Mar 3, 2009

### Brilliant!

Thanks

16. Mar 3, 2009

### 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.

17. Mar 3, 2009

### 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.

18. Mar 4, 2009

### SETHOSCOTT

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

19. Mar 4, 2009

### CozmicScott

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

20. Mar 4, 2009

*shrug*