Poll: Is Anything Possible?

[Not-here-anymore]

The speed at which this dissolves into futility it staggering. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, there is no frame of reference to have a conversation at all. I appreciate the Cartesian doubt, but there comes a point where it is an exercise in semantics as opposed to an exercise of dispelling entrenched paradigms.

Or, in normal English:
This discussion is becoming pointless really quickly. If nothing is impossible, and everything is possible, then this question is entirely pointless, and shouldn't generate as much discussion as it has. You keep saying 'alternate dimensions make everything fine', and we keep saying 'even so, there are limits', so this has become a game of people trying to find a loophole in your rules rather than a thread of people letting their imaginations wander, free of the rules of this world.

Sorry, I'm usually the one with the posts using sufficiently obscure English to deter several readers...

 

[Canid117]

I believe that the most basic rule of Quantum Physics states that anything can happen, it is just very unlikely (to the point of being infinitely so at times) that some things will happen. Like passing through a solid object. So I am going to have to say that anything is technically possible it just probably isn't going to happen.

 

[Xvito]

There are certain things that are so unlikely to happen that one can safely say they will not happen.

That doesn't mean that they won't happen, that just means that they are unlikely.

Which part of "they will not happen" didn't you understand?

 

[Shankity Stick]

First of all, I'm a guy. Secondly, it depends on how dimensions work. Maybe they are universes where there are alternate versions of people but they are completely different. Or you could believe (as I do) that dimensions are mirror images of each other with one detail changed, altering their existence. The people would still be the same people, just under different circumstances.

First off, I prefer saying "he" or "she" rather than "(s)he" or "he/she". It flows so much better when hearing and looks better when reading. I also prefer saying "she" when gender is irrelevant or unknown (and therefore irrelevant) just because it is different. Taking offense to it is your problem. Moving on: no, you do not want to get into a debate about philosophy with me. It has been proven that people with the same DNA aren't exactly alike even grown up in the exact same environment. Those "different circumstances" are a change in the environment which means that you cannot be the same person because they will react differently to a stimulus whether slightly or differently. Even twins like I described react to things slightly differently and have their own thoughts and emotions.

I'm not taking offense, simply correcting your mistake. Also, comparing twins to dimension copies is futile. Twins are different people with different mindsets, going through different things. Dimension copies are the exact same person only in a different world with one changed detail that changes circumstance.

 

[spartan231490]

it is often said, even in scientific circles, that it is impossible to prove a negative. And that is exactly what it means, you can't prove that something doesnt ever happen somewhere, you can only prove that it is unlikely.

If it is impossible to prove a universal negative, then not everything is possible.

He said that one doesnt count in the begining.

 

[VGStrife]

it is often said, even in scientific circles, that it is impossible to prove a negative. And that is exactly what it means, you can't prove that something doesnt ever happen somewhere, you can only prove that it is unlikely.

Prove it

 

[Zacharine]

So I am going to have to say that anything is technically possible it just probably isn't going to happen.

Yet another contender for my challenge:

Disprove logic, without using logic while at it (as otherwise it will end up being a circular argument that is proof of nothing).

If you deem this impossible, then not everything is possible.

 

[Not-here-anymore]

In one of my classrooms my English teacher had this quote written, "Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given rather than to explore the power they have change it. Impossible is not a fact. It is a opinion. Impossible is not a declaration it is a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing".

Sorry if it's already been posted

P.S. Can anyone tell me who originally said that?

Muhammad Ali, apparently. But you have to trim it down in google a lot before it stops referencing people's myspace pages...

Disprove logic, without using logic while at it (as otherwise it will end up being a circular argument that is proof of nothing).

If you deem this impossible, then not everything is possible.

Hurr durr, logic is stupid? Does that work? Otherwise, I agree - logic is, pretty much by definition, the base of any argument, thus using it in an argument to disprove logic is impossible.

 

[wildpeaks]

Anything's possible, but some things are very very unlikely, like me playing an MMORPG and like it, or a pink elephant flying out of the window to the Moon.

 

[Limzz]

Of course. All you can be sure of is what you're perceiving through your senses. Aside from that, how can you know anything?

 

[wildpeaks]

So, different dimensions, and magic.

That's like asking "If absolutely everything is possible, is anything impossible"

Also, me, in this reality, right now, killing a whale with a sharpened ski. Not happening!
(Yay! A loophole!)

Maybe you are killing a whale with a sharpened ski, you just don't realize it.

Unlikely; I lost my skis a few months ago in a fairly bad accident.
*looks down*
When did I get a new pair of skis?
And why is one of them stuck in a whale?
More importantly, how the hell did a whale fit into my room?

It's fine, the whale isn't fatally wounded. Thus you are proved wrong!

The whale is fatally wounded, you just happen to be stucked in a VR environment that tries to convince you otherwise.

 

[spartan231490]

it is often said, even in scientific circles, that it is impossible to prove a negative. And that is exactly what it means, you can't prove that something doesnt ever happen somewhere, you can only prove that it is unlikely.

Prove it

Idiots, proving my point since 1995.
that was a joke, i dont think your an idiot.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

It's impossible for me to not exist in some capacity.

 

[Zacharine]

it is often said, even in scientific circles, that it is impossible to prove a negative. And that is exactly what it means, you can't prove that something doesnt ever happen somewhere, you can only prove that it is unlikely.

If it is impossible to prove a universal negative, then not everything is possible.

He said that one doesnt count in the begining.

He said: "I dare anyone to disprove ANYTHING, if you factor in magic, other planets, and alternate dimensions."

And

"My logic is that we can't prove that something definitely doesn't exist/ happen somewhere out there. That is the one thing that is impossible."

I believe I have proven by logical argument that logic cannot be disproved. He has yet to counter that argument without using logic while at it.

Also, he does not mention logical absolutes or concepts separate from reality anywhere in his OP.

 

[MurderousToaster]

Dividing by zero.

Hah.

Eat it.

Prove it. You can't get away with just saying things. Back them up with logic.

If you divide by zero, the result is always undefined. If you have a perfectly vertical line, the gradient is undefined, due to achieving the gradient revolving around dividing by zero. There is no feasible way to determine the result of dividing by zero. It is always undefined.

All you have done is just say "dividing by zero is undefined" which was your premise and you are using it as your evidence and conclusion.

And have you done anything to prove that it is possible to divide by zero? All you have done is say "Your argument is invalid because you cannot expand."

 

[Shankity Stick]

it is often said, even in scientific circles, that it is impossible to prove a negative. And that is exactly what it means, you can't prove that something doesnt ever happen somewhere, you can only prove that it is unlikely.

If it is impossible to prove a universal negative, then not everything is possible.

But it could be proved. we (the human rece not we, you and me) just can't.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Oh, misunderstood the question. It's not impossible, but asuming it is is riddiculous; even considering it's possiblity without any justification is stupid. Ultimately, the only field of thought that can prove anything is mathematics. 1+1=2 (in standard arithmetic), you cannot make it otherwise.

 

[Zacharine]

Hurr durr, logic is stupid? Does that work?

Still logic. And something being stupid is no proof of it not functioning or not existing.

Otherwise, I agree - logic is, pretty much by definition, the base of any argument, thus using it in an argument to disprove logic is impossible.

And thereby, not everything is possible; there is something that is impossible.

 

[Faisal Haji]

even if this is kindah cheesy but 'impossible is nothing' n 'nothing is impossible'

 

[Zacharine]

it is often said, even in scientific circles, that it is impossible to prove a negative. And that is exactly what it means, you can't prove that something doesnt ever happen somewhere, you can only prove that it is unlikely.

If it is impossible to prove a universal negative, then not everything is possible.

But it could be proved. we (the human rece not we, you and me) just can't.

I point you back to my previous argument:

To disprove anything, you need to have at least one being, object or something else capable of thought.

You also need to have an argument that disproves logic, or an object, test, experiment or something else that acts as proof contrary to logic.

Then you need think the satement (in whatever language) "Because of X, logic does not work."

However, this statement itself is a logical connection between X and logic, crafted by the whatever that is doing the thinking.

Thereby using logic in an attempt to disprove logic.