Does there exist any impossible thing?

Well, MSRAM, just appear in front of me! Right now...

Is that possible for you?

An interesting question

According to the one definition of "existence"* any "thing" with which I "interact" is deemed to exist. Since such interaction could be physical or mental then anything which can be "thought of" has "existence" e.g. unicorns, ghosts, or three legged pixies.

However what matters is not "existence" but the nature of the interaction. By using the adjective "impossible" I am in theory delimiting my interactions to "mind's eye" only. Yet we might note that in Physics an interesting corollary seems to have arisen where anything "possible" will be observed (e.g the same particle in different places at once). We must therefore take care as to what (or whose) rationality is being used to evaluate "possibility" and also not to assume that the observed has separate existence from the observer.

* (Actually my definition).

It's impossible for George W. Bush to move his lips without spewing prevarications.

Fresco, you take arguing over semantics to a new level by introducing your own fallacious definitions of words and then nitpicking into the possible unintended meanings of your own definitions...

Paradox there, it's also impossible for him to utter "prevarications"!

Stuh.
If you think the defintion of "existence" is clear cut try reading Heideggar.
So except for the word "fallacious" I'll take that as a compliment !.

Not everyting is possilble
well... here is a proof to say that not every thing is possible...

Assume that everything is possible.
=> Nothing is impossilbe.
=> There exists nothing which is impossible.
=> We can not show a thing which is impossible.
=> It is impossible to show an impossilbe thing,
=> a contradiction (and hence the proof)

msram

I think you will find you are playing with a version of Russells paradox there involving whether "nothing" is a member of the class of "things".

Either the question is meaningless, or it implies a philosophical analysis of "thing" "possibility" "show" and "existence". Such analysis would include the following points.

(1)Semantics can transcend binary logic...(e.g. "the only truth is that there is no truth")

(2) All demonstatration is preceded by conception/hypothesis, (The conception that a particle can be in two locations at the same time was clearly stretching the normal boundaries of "possibility" and "existence" yet the case has been demonstrated)

(3) Many subscribe to the "existence" of a deity even though conventionable demonstration is absent.

msram, I don't see any contradictions there

.
stuh505,
it's indeed a contradiction; since we intially assumed that everything is possible; and arrived at a conclusion that it is impossible to show an impossible thing, which implies that not everything is possible.

"Everythig is possible" and "Not everything is possible".... Aren't these contrdictory?
I think they are!

No, under the assumption that everything is possible it is vacuously true that it is impossible to show an impossible thing.

i haven't read all the posts yet, but seems to me that if something exists, it's necessarily possible.

...
STUH505,

Can't we accept the vacuously true statements to be true?

Re: ...


That's my point, and that is why your proof is incorrect. Your proof assumes that the vacuously true statement is false.

Who said anything about narrowing it down to things that exist? When anything is said it does not mean "any physical thing."

msram, here is a proof that gets at what you were trying to say only this one is correct:

1) Everything is possible
2) This is a statement: "Everything is not possible."
3) Therefore, it is possible that everything is not possible.
4) Therefore, everything you can imagine is a counter-example to the original statement.

Clark's First Law

Arthur C. Clarke

Rap

Stuh said

"Who said anything about narrowing it down to things that exist? When anything is said it does not mean "any physical thing." "

Does that mean "existence" is "physical" ?....and does that in turn mean "statements" do not "exist" :wink:

...
STUH505,
ok..let it be... I am neither a philosopher nor a logician to continue to argue on that proof.
After all, I am a graduate student. plese leave it.

fresco,

I did not make any judgements about what is or is not physical, I merely pointed out that the word "anything" refers not only to physical things but also to abstract concepts.

msram,

I can't believe you're using being a graduate student as an excuse for not being able to understand such a simple proof!