Anything is possible? Really?
Posted 10-27-2009 at 11:04 AM by Satorri
This is a sticky one. Largely it becomes a tautology.
Our concept of what is "possible" is shaped by what we have done, and to an extent what we believe other people have done. In the workings of our mind, you cannot actually disprove anything, only prove, and only then by actually doing.
For example, you cannot tell me you can't fly because you cannot preclude that it cannot happen. You can however, fly, and then know that it is possible.
In the face of uncertainty then, there is no good reason to write anything as "impossible" except to cut yourself off from trying to do so intentionally.
The circle closes here on its own rational extension. However, we can open the door here as well. Is there any reason to believe that anything is not actually achievable?
Is there anything you have seen that represents a real and indelible boundary? Question the walls you think exist, scratch the surface and you can find they're about as impassable as the air.
Our concept of what is "possible" is shaped by what we have done, and to an extent what we believe other people have done. In the workings of our mind, you cannot actually disprove anything, only prove, and only then by actually doing.
For example, you cannot tell me you can't fly because you cannot preclude that it cannot happen. You can however, fly, and then know that it is possible.
In the face of uncertainty then, there is no good reason to write anything as "impossible" except to cut yourself off from trying to do so intentionally.
The circle closes here on its own rational extension. However, we can open the door here as well. Is there any reason to believe that anything is not actually achievable?
Is there anything you have seen that represents a real and indelible boundary? Question the walls you think exist, scratch the surface and you can find they're about as impassable as the air.
Total Comments 16
Comments
-
There's also a chain of thought that ultimately nothing can be proven to be true or false, merely beyond reasonable doubt.
The reasoning here is that you see everything through your senses. If any of these senses are false, it's difficult to impossible to tell (i.e. you see Red as Blue, and have done since you were born. Would you ever know you saw things differently?). And if you're truely insane, your version of the world may be vastly different to everyone else's. But who can say who is insane, and who isn't?
Ultimately there is a benchmark. The majority. But they aren't always right either. So we just assume, for the sake of actually getting anything done at all, that the basics are all as correct as we can understand them.Posted 10-27-2009 at 12:46 PM by Durandro 
-
95% of the world believes in a supreme being, but no more than 20%-ish can decide on the same one (and that's being generously general in their grouping).
There's also a perceptual conundrum. You tend to find what you go looking for.Posted 10-27-2009 at 02:47 PM by Satorri 
- I can say with absolute certainty that it is impossible for a homo sapien to breath underwater. Just because you tell yourself it's not impossible doesn't make it possible. It just simply can't be done. A person would be unable to breath underwater because oxygen does not exist in gas form underwater, and that is what we need to breath.
So, our concept of what is impossible is also shaped by what others have done or failed to do. In the workings of our mind, you can easily disprove something, simply by looking at the basic biology of our species.Posted 10-27-2009 at 03:06 PM by Jadage - But if a person believes 100% that they can breathe underwater, then they can! In their own mind...
Posted 10-27-2009 at 03:53 PM by Durenas - just because they think they can doesn't mean they can. I could believe that I could beat Lebron James and Kobe Bryant 2v1 in basketball, doesn't make it true.
Posted 10-27-2009 at 04:53 PM by Jadage - No, but if there is some freakish form of mutation present in a human that allows them to absorb oxygen from water, then they'd probably be able to breathe underwater unaided.
Of course, divers having been breathing underwater through some help of machinery for some time, and since Jadage didn't specify that exception, he's quite wrong.
Of course, if the majority of people determined what was correct, we'd all say god exists (since contrary to what Satorri claimed, all jews, christians and muslims believe in the same god, and those three religions claim to have over half the world population as members.)
I don't believe everything is possible, and even from all the myriad possibilities, not everything is achievable.
One of the strongest reasons for not everything being possible is that it all doesn't add up. If everything is possible, then everything will happen eventually. Since everything will happen eventually, eventually, a time machine will be built.
Since everything is possible, a device that ends the universe will be built.
Since everything is possible, someone will travel back in time with a device to end the universe, and end the universe.
Since the universe still exists, that person did not end the universe, which leads me to conclude that not everything is possible.
That is ignoring all the right-out contradictions that the 'everything is possible' scenario creates.Posted 10-27-2009 at 04:55 PM by Martie
Updated 10-27-2009 at 05:05 PM by Martie - However, this can only be true under the assumption of a universe and the concept of time traveling. If you assume that you travel back in time to the universe, then yes, you would be correct. However, if the concept of time traveling is merely going to a parallel universe (which comes under the assumption that there are multiple universes; a multiverse if you will), then the man with the universe ender did successfully end the universe, just not your universe.Quote:Originally Posted by Martie
Since the universe still exists, that person did not end the universe, which leads me to conclude that not everything is possible.
Also, anything and everything is possible. Now, if it's probable is a different story...Posted 10-27-2009 at 08:17 PM by kpxneophyte - If everything is possible, it is possible to travel back in time without dimension hopping.
Posted 10-27-2009 at 10:21 PM by Martie - All the snide remarks aside, thanks for the interesting read, Satorri. Now, perhaps it is me reading this in the early morning. But what is the point you are trying to make with these posts? The text and the ideas are interesting enough to warrant reading, nonetheless. To me it feels like you're providing the arguments without the actual message you're trying to get across.
Posted 10-28-2009 at 01:05 AM by Aethelas - With the water breathing, you first need to assume that the universe truely exists and isn't a figment of the imagination. Hense if you can't prove reality itself exists, you can't prove or disprove that you can breathe underwater (or even breathe at all, come to think of it).
And hense, such trains of thought are eternally stuck in the depot. So we just assume reality does exist and go on from there.Posted 10-28-2009 at 02:21 AM by Durandro - No, what you are talking about is a completely different direction of philosofy.Quote:Originally Posted by Durandro With the water breathing, you first need to assume that the universe truely exists and isn't a figment of the imagination. Hense if you can't prove reality itself exists, you can't prove or disprove that you can breathe underwater (or even breathe at all, come to think of it).
And hense, such trains of thought are eternally stuck in the depot. So we just assume reality does exist and go on from there.
It's different and quite complicated in itself, but when used in a simple form, it's basically a way of saying "discussing anything is impossible and pointless."Posted 10-28-2009 at 06:13 AM by Martie - Don't confuse belief for understanding.
Anything is possible does not mean you just have to really want it to be true. Anything is possible is an assumption, one of many in the foundation of my philosophy. The point is only that you have no reason to believe you *cannot* breathe underwater, that too is an assumption. So if you're making assumptions, why choose inhibiting ones? If it is possible to breathe underwater, it is a matter of how, not, "let me jump in the water and REALLY REALLY want to breathe, and I will!"
Ending the universe is also a matter of understanding. Anything is possible, perhaps, but getting into the void is a trickier subject still. Existence vs Non-existence is a tricky thing for which we have no foundation, only a nice imaginary idea so far.
And, Martie, Jews, Christians, and Muslims may share some common elements of faith, and *may* exist in a branch of the same tree in monotheism, but they would not agree that they believe in the same God. That's why they are three different faiths. Not even all Christians believe in the same God, they have fundamental distinctions that they are certain the others have gotten wrong, thus the different sects of Christianity.Posted 10-28-2009 at 06:30 AM by Satorri - No, Satorri, those three religions all share the same god, though they have (partially) different teachings regarding that god.
And different though they may be, they all worship Abraham's god.Posted 10-28-2009 at 11:08 AM by Martie - As you like. Customer is always right, eh?
Posted 10-28-2009 at 12:45 PM by Satorri - I think what needs to be defined is a set of parameters for "proofs".
Pure water freezes at 0°C (32°f) at sea level. Take the water up a 25000 foot mountain and it will freeze at a different temperature. Same goes for boiling water. Boil a kettle at the top of Everest and your water will only be at 95°C (which means your tea wont stew properly).
We can only define what is real, what is fantasy and what it is that we do not understand if we construct a framework of facts and arbitrary conditions as referring to something, be it an object or not, needs a point of view. leave this framework undefined and you can disprove anything, even something as basic as 2+2=4, or that humans cannot breath underwater. Humans can breath underwater, there is gaseous oxygen there. Just not very muchPosted 10-28-2009 at 09:22 PM by Pyrea - The application of classifications and restrictions is artificial. It is a tool we use to enable understanding.
Temperature is our way of expressing the activity level of atoms (notice, still our concept of how things are put together and work, best model so far). Disproving something within our framework cannot be done by taking the frame away.
Recognizing that there's a difference between the frame and reality does not disprove things, it only opens new avenues that we had previously dismissed because of the unintended beliefs and restrictions dictated by our arbitrary framework we designed.
I have to get to work, but I'll try to come up with a good example to add here later.Posted 10-29-2009 at 07:02 AM by Satorri
