Is 'everything' possible?

[jupta]

What do you think?

[volta]

Some might be skeptical that your first post is a question without much background detail, but what the hell?

Anything is possible assuming the conditions that lead to it are possible, right? All conditions are not necessarily fixed or known however and any conditions are theoretically possible (ie. conceivable). So, at any specific time and place, maybe not everything is possible, but at some universal time and place, everything is possible. Well, who cares about the restrictions of time, place...? so therefore, the answer to your question seems to be yes.

Or, you could argue that everything is just in our thoughts anyway, and therefore, if something can be thought, it is possible. I can think of a three-legged purple elephant/bird cross, though I have not seen it, it is possible (on another planet for example, if not this one). So another affirmative. There are other ways to look at this, and someone else can no doubt put it more elegantly than me using philosophical terminology, but it will run along these lines.

[BMcGilly07]

Jupta,

I would suggest you focus more on your question and employ some of your reason to get a better grasp on what it is you're aiming at with this question.

As an outside observer there are at least two ways I can interpret this question:

1) Is everything (lit. the Totality) possible?

-and-

2) Is everything (anything) possible?

To the first interpretation I would say that the Totality exists as the alpha and the omega of existence, because it is infinite and therefore not a 'thing' it is above and beyond existence such that it is always possible as it is immanently close to being realized, and that it is never possible for the same reason: it is not a thing and therefore cannot be thought of in the conventional idea of existence.

As for the second interpretation, when we speak of a thing here it is commonly and most advantageously to reason and thought to define a thing as that which has a boundary, limit, or end of some kind. As such, all things are caused, and therefore have their "pre-existence" in their causes, and since we cannot know what will be caused until it comes into existence, it becomes an intellectual matter to resolve that because we cannot know whether or not all things are possible or not, that doesn't mean they are not.

If you have any questions about the Infinite, Truth, or resolving the Ultimate Questions of your existence, you might want to give some time to this book: http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ntents.htm

[Foreigner]

What do you think?

Id have to say "no", N,O, no way ray.
For instance, i only learned today that none of the many dog owners are at risk of becoming pregnant, I mean not from their pet-lovers anyway.

Naturally i was quite relieved, dont care to wrap my mind around those possibilities!
Yuck.

(on the plus side i understand they last far longer than men, and have a more abrasive tongue as well)

[jupta]

Thanks to everyone who's replied.

I should have clarified what I meant by the question. I admit, Volta, that it wasn't a very well thought out question. But what I based it on was the constant phrase that people use - "Oh, everything is possible."

My question should be taken as, what do people mean by 'everything' when they say that? Can they truly mean 'everything'? Or do they just mean the things that their minds can conceive of at that particular instant? I am inclined to think that it is the latter, and I think that it applies to all of us.

As for the original question, I would go with Volta's first assertion - that everything is, in fact, possible, given that the restrictions of time and space are completely removed.

@McGilly but then, is not anything a part of everything? So I'd say that if everything is possible, then so is anything.

Yeah, I've been meaning to read that book lately.

@Foreigner indeed. Then again, not naturally perhaps, but given the conditions, I believe that such a thing is possible. Anyways, let's not get any further into that!

[Jamesh]

As for the original question, I would go with Volta's first assertion - that everything is, in fact, possible, given that the restrictions of time and space are completely removed.

Under what circumstances could the restrictions time and space be completely removed? Infinity does not mean there is an infinite variety of entities. There are not multi-verses, just multi observer-dependant appearances of the same universe. The universe should be thought of as the eternal circular game of Rock, Paper, Scisssors.

There is a tendency (and a certainty over enough time) for all areas of the universe to expand on a somewhat two-dimensional plane and contract in a 3 dimensional circular plane. The universe has constants, which although they may not be constant across the totality, they are constant from our perspective. These constants represent the geometrical-causal relationship between expansion and contraction, the outcome of which is everything bounded - eg an atom cannot be bigger than X, or it will cease being an atom, it will extrude somehat two dimensional radiation and other energy forms. Another is the red shift phenonemum. Because of these limitations, and breaks in the array of things, only a limited array of things can subsequently form.

Evolution does not just apply to life, but to all things. There always exists a heirchary of form in which the more powerful, of which there exist fewer, consumes, or controls the action of, the less powerful.

All these points point to the impossibilty of all forms (everything) being possible.

Imagining different forms never seen before does not create them, it only creates changes to ones brain structure in the creation of the thought-memory.

[jupta]

Under what circumstances could the restrictions time and space be completely removed?

I don't know. The infinite, I would guess.

There are not multi-verses, just multi observer-dependant appearances of the same universe.

How do you know that there are not multi-verses AND multi-observer-dependent variations of the same universe?

There is a tendency (and a certainty over enough time) for all areas of the universe to expand on a somewhat two-dimensional plane and contract in a 3 dimensional circular plane.

I cannot grasp this concept. Can you elaborate?

These constants represent the geometrical-causal relationship between expansion and contraction, the outcome of which is everything bounded - eg an atom cannot be bigger than X, or it will cease being an atom, it will extrude somehat two dimensional radiation and other energy forms.

Can't those constants be variable according to different perspectives? And how do those constants apply to the infinite?

Evolution does not just apply to life, but to all things. There always exists a heirchary of form in which the more powerful, of which there exist fewer, consumes, or controls the action of, the less powerful.

And what tops that hierarchy?

[volta]

Under what circumstances could the restrictions time and space be completely removed?

The question was "Is everything possible?" not "Is everything possible in Chicago at the corner of fifth and main at 4:22 pm?

Imagining different forms never seen before does not create them, it only creates changes to ones brain structure in the creation of the thought-memory.

We agree that everything we see, touch, smell, hear all occurs within our individual thoughts or senses (what you call "changes to ones brain structure"). What are our senses (thoughts) but neurons firing in our mind to conjure up what these senses (thoughts) imply to us? If one can fire these neurons and conjure up forms never before seen, what is the difference in that context ? Even the individual senses between people are not the same, so you may see a purple car parked on the driveway and I may see the same car as a blue car. Whose right? Can you then look at me and say there is no such thing as a blue car on the driveway?

On a casual level, when we think about how this planet came to be, and how we came to be on it, how could anyone think anything BUT that anything was possible. Christ, giant birds you used to fly around, scaly monsters roamed the earth, massive beasts dwelled in the seas.... All you have to do is watch a few episodes of BBC's Planet Earth series and you can see that many of these unimaginable things are still happening on this incredibly bizzare place. And that's without even going into the idea of Black Holes and other scientific phenemona and other planets, universes, solar systems... Hell, George Bush got elected as President ---- twice ---- so don't tell me that everything isn't possible!

[David Quinn]

What about square circles?

-

[volta]

What about square circles?

-

Giant dwarfs? That's just word games, but okay.... how about everything's possible *except the self contradictory. Or there might be a universe where up is down, black is white, tall is short and when you ask someone to draw 4 squares, they scribble O O O O

[David Quinn]

Still no square circles in that universe either.

In other words, it is inherently impossible for a 2-D object to be a circle and a square at the same time. Thus, not everything is possible.

-

[Dan Rowden]

On the other hand, the logically impossible are not really things, so one might say the answer to that question is "yes". Every thing is possible. On further consideration, it's obvious the question is needless.

[DHodges]

I'm with Mr. Quinn. Possible things are possible. Impossible things are not. It's as simple as that.

Dan, I would say an impossible thing could still be an object of thought, although not a real physical object, so the phrase "impossible thing" does make sense, e.g., a square circle is an impossible thing.

On further consideration, it's obvious the question is needless.

Yep.

[jupta]

Dan, I would say an impossible thing could still be an object of thought, although not a real physical object, so the phrase "impossible thing" does make sense, e.g., a square circle is an impossible thing.

An impossible thing cannot be conceived by thought in the first place, because thought itself cannot go beyond anything that it deems to be impossible.

[Malik]

What everything?

[jupta]

What everything?

Your question contradicts itself.

[Anders Schlander]

A square is not a triangle, if it was both, it would be neither, it would be a 5 sided star. :)

Everything imagined is still in the realms of the universe. The total matter in every configuration possible that pertains to the universe's laws 'could work', and has the potential for anything. Everything we imagine should potentially work in a given configuration. The universe does not like to 'stand still' and will continually alter itself, so even if the most insane thing was possible, it wouldn't stay that way.

A human can turn into food, food into a human - it can change form, but by becoming something new, it became less of what it was. but only one configuration at a time. Everything would be a blur, and we would not make sense of anything, if things did not differentiate from other things. It's a joy that it can, and our existance, attributed to many of these 'laws of order' that control a system like a/the universe.

[paco]

What do you think?

I am a genius. What possible way is there not to be?

[dysfunctionalgenius]

Yes, but only in your mind!