If something is actual, real, then it is therefore possible. Right?
I don't think so. I think that the word "possible" implies things other than mere "reality" and is thus inaccurate to use in various contexts.
"Possible" can in fact have THREE different meanings, philosophically, that I have been able to parse. Some of these are implied in the general usage of the word, but not all of them, all of the time.
FIRST, there is the notion that a hypothetical object is at least possible FROM OUR VANTAGE POINT OF KNOWLEDGE. Let me explain. Theists and atheists argue whether an eternal being (God) exists. Generally, both believe it is possible it exists, although both may, also, have varying levels of doubt that they are right, one way or the other. Let's just concentrate on the segment of the population who are OPEN to agnosticism to some extent. It is these I wish to focus on, because it is these thinkers who highlight what it means for something to be POSSIBLE from the epistemological, or knowledge, vantage point, but not in the sense of ontology.
As I have said, these theists and atheists argue about an ETERNAL being (God). IF God exists, then he could not have come to be. It is a necessary being. He could not have NOT been, at any point. Likewise, if God ISN'T, then it is equally a necessary FACT that no God could possibly exist (because God is by definition eternal -- he would have always, already BEEN).
So what meaning does the word "possible" have in the context of the discussion between these uncertain theists and atheists? It only applies to their own epistemology. Actually, the REALITIES God or not-God were CERTAIN, all along, being UNCHANGEABLE FACTS completely independent of our MINDS debating about them. It is only our own uncertain mental GRASPING that DEFAULTED to the conclusion "possible." Nay, CERTAIN is regards the ACTUAL FACT, POSSIBLE applies only to our SPECULATION ABOUT it.
SECOND, there is the notion that something can be ACTUALLY or ONTOLOGICALLY possible. This can refer, unlike in the case of God or eternally or absolutely necessary beings (mathematical forms, etc), to things which have the POTENTIAL of COMING to BE from a state of NOT BEING or "NOTHINGNESS." So for instance, assuming we do not live in a wholly deterministic universe, that there is such a thing as an uncertainty principle, then things can MOVE from a state of POTENTIALITY to one of ACTUALITY (or not). So for instance, it is possible to win the lottery. Assuming there is free will or some other force involved, we can assume that it is at least possible a certain player can win (or, again, NOT, as the case may TURN OUT). Here possibility takes on a completely different meaning. It is ontological, not epistemic.
THIRD, there is lastly the notion that SOMETHING (a state of affairs, etc) is possible in the sense that REALITY as we know it in terms of its inherent RATIONALITY ALLOWS or PERMITS it. So we know that since logic is real, there cannot be such a thing as a one-sided shape in terms of our spatial experience. Assuming any type of shape IPSO FACTO presumes more than one side because that is the nature of space. One side + depth = at least another side. This is simply a basic feature of the reality we find ourselves in. It is inherent.
Now, let's apply this to a "World." An actual world. The world we live in.
Is it, FIRSTLY, possible in the epistemic sense? You could say so, but since most of us take the world as a given, it is meaningless to say so. No one is agnostic or debating about it. So why even bother saying this about the world?
Is it, SECONDLY, possible in the ontological sense? How would you know? Do you know that the world does not have a necessary existence (that is, generated by chance)? If not, then it's not really accurate to say it is possible, is it? The fact is, you don't know, do you?
Is it, THIRDLY, possible in the rationalistic sense? This last one seems the most fitting. But it is also the least interesting. So what if the world is rational? It just means that the world isn't inherently absurd, but follows the necessary logic of existence all existent things follow. It doesn't tell us squat about any other "possible worlds" -- only this one. And what it simply says is that this world "IS" as much as anything is - rational and not absurd.
Is this world ACTUAL? Knock-knock. Yep.
Is this world possible?
At best, maybe, or it's a moot point.
(I am open to being proven wrong though; let's all learn together).
Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Moderator: Moderators
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #1"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #2I believe in possibilities. I don't believe in random possibilia.
The former are grounded in necessity, potentially at least. Random possibilia on the other hand can be conceived (or imagined as the case may be) from whole cloth. It is only real possibilities that can "catch the flame" of necessity, thus imbuing them with actuality. Like flammable candle wicks, their nature must be, in order to receive that flame of actuality. And that from an equally actual source -- those possibilities being receptive to this source because it IS their source, and like meets with like. A random possibili is like a candle wick made from ice. It cannot reflect the flame of necessity.
Only a world can give birth to a world.
The former are grounded in necessity, potentially at least. Random possibilia on the other hand can be conceived (or imagined as the case may be) from whole cloth. It is only real possibilities that can "catch the flame" of necessity, thus imbuing them with actuality. Like flammable candle wicks, their nature must be, in order to receive that flame of actuality. And that from an equally actual source -- those possibilities being receptive to this source because it IS their source, and like meets with like. A random possibili is like a candle wick made from ice. It cannot reflect the flame of necessity.
Only a world can give birth to a world.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3501
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1134 times
- Been thanked: 733 times
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #3Props for breaking down possible to its very different component definitions. I may have more on this thread later, but for now, you're clearly showing that most people using the term possible in an argument are committing equivocation.
You deserve a cake.
No, you deserve a cake with a little gold crown on top.
![Image](https://i.ibb.co/ry2TgNz/cakecrown.jpg)
You deserve a cake.
No, you deserve a cake with a little gold crown on top.
![Image](https://i.ibb.co/ry2TgNz/cakecrown.jpg)
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #4Perhaps there is a way to save the concept. Maybe there is an analogous thread running through all three definitions; maybe they are all "converging" on a common concept but from different angles. Maybe possibility is a cube and these three separate definitions are like length, width and breadth respectively. I don't know. I'm not a modal logician. But I find these things interesting to at least daydream about.
For instance, the theme of being and nothingness runs throughout all three. They are dealing with the (attempted) assertion of BEING running AGAINST THE GRAIN of nothingness.
The epistemic possibility asserter (#1) does so by postulating a being up against nothingness. Even hypothetically, all the rational ingredients must be there for that being to be. In order for that being to be it has to work that that being can be, in other words. It can't be irrational. So #3 can be smuggled in.
The ontological possibility asserter (#2) postulates a being "rising up out of nothingness." Once again, being is bordered up against nothingness, and it is struggling to "get out." This is observable at least (under the best of circumstances), unlike in #1. However, one has to deals with these mysterious forces, uncertainty principles and others, that seem to act magically on behalf of being and contra nothingness' relentless hold. That is another thing. One can appeal either to creatio ex nihilo here or creatio ex materia or some other principle. But perhaps one needs such a principle in existence and not just the mind to make cohesive sense of possibility. Perhaps such causal principles are parallel to rational principles. Because, conceivability must run in tandem with plausible realizability in the real world. So #3 and #1 can be smuggled in. To postulate #1 one needs to assume #3 and that itself assumes #2.
The rational possibility asserter does so on behalf of the principle, but also on the basis of how the principle is expressed in terms of #2 (again, the realities that are at play really) and also regarding HOW they are parsed in #1. It seems therefore that all these principles are in some sense united and not disparate, even though they are not the same.
For instance, the theme of being and nothingness runs throughout all three. They are dealing with the (attempted) assertion of BEING running AGAINST THE GRAIN of nothingness.
The epistemic possibility asserter (#1) does so by postulating a being up against nothingness. Even hypothetically, all the rational ingredients must be there for that being to be. In order for that being to be it has to work that that being can be, in other words. It can't be irrational. So #3 can be smuggled in.
The ontological possibility asserter (#2) postulates a being "rising up out of nothingness." Once again, being is bordered up against nothingness, and it is struggling to "get out." This is observable at least (under the best of circumstances), unlike in #1. However, one has to deals with these mysterious forces, uncertainty principles and others, that seem to act magically on behalf of being and contra nothingness' relentless hold. That is another thing. One can appeal either to creatio ex nihilo here or creatio ex materia or some other principle. But perhaps one needs such a principle in existence and not just the mind to make cohesive sense of possibility. Perhaps such causal principles are parallel to rational principles. Because, conceivability must run in tandem with plausible realizability in the real world. So #3 and #1 can be smuggled in. To postulate #1 one needs to assume #3 and that itself assumes #2.
The rational possibility asserter does so on behalf of the principle, but also on the basis of how the principle is expressed in terms of #2 (again, the realities that are at play really) and also regarding HOW they are parsed in #1. It seems therefore that all these principles are in some sense united and not disparate, even though they are not the same.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #5No. If something is real then it is real. There is no need to say of an elephant, "Look an elephant is possible!"Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:39 pm If something is actual, real, then it is therefore possible. Right?
One could look at a horse, a narwhal, and a flamingo and say from that 'it is possible that somewhere in this vast expanse of time space, pink unicorns could exist...as actual things...it is not outside the realm of possibility given what we already know of as real, right?
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #6Right! One can argue that it is actually unjustified to generalize from one particular instance (an elephant) to more of its kind, somewhere, someplace. They may or may not exist; but one has only the one real elephant to work from. So, even though the elephant is actual, there is no need to say it is even possible.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:15 pmNo. If something is real then it is real. There is no need to say of an elephant, "Look an elephant is possible!"Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Mon Apr 12, 2021 11:39 pm If something is actual, real, then it is therefore possible. Right?
And as I like to repeat, not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible. There are limits on what is possible -- not only what is rationally permissible via our own concepts, but because of the limits that objective reality imposes on possibilia.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:15 pmOne could look at a horse, a narwhal, and a flamingo and say from that 'it is possible that somewhere in this vast expanse of time space, pink unicorns could exist...as actual things...it is not outside the realm of possibility given what we already know of as real, right?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #7True that, from the position of someone who believes in [for example] Emergence Theory.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:11 pmAnd as I like to repeat, not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible. There are limits on what is possible -- not only what is rationally permissible via our own concepts, but because of the limits that objective reality imposes on possibilia.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:15 pmOne could look at a horse, a narwhal, and a flamingo and say from that 'it is possible that somewhere in this vast expanse of time space, pink unicorns could exist...as actual things...it is not outside the realm of possibility given what we already know of as real, right?
Theism expands on what is real in believing that there is a mind behind the creation of this universe which in itself makes literally anything which humans can imagine, possible to experience...not in this universe but in the next phase [afterlife]...so - as usual - "not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible." is only true from a non-theist position, although some theist beliefs are more aligned with Emergence Theory than others....
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #8It CAN be true from a theist position (my own position). But, you are free to disagree. I would say though, that you have no way of knowing whether it is true or false. You have no way to gauge the actual fact. It is, again, at best a "maybe." Else, you haven't payed attention to anything I've written in this thread.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:24 pmTrue that, from the position of someone who believes in [for example] Emergence Theory.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:11 pmAnd as I like to repeat, not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible. There are limits on what is possible -- not only what is rationally permissible via our own concepts, but because of the limits that objective reality imposes on possibilia.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:15 pmOne could look at a horse, a narwhal, and a flamingo and say from that 'it is possible that somewhere in this vast expanse of time space, pink unicorns could exist...as actual things...it is not outside the realm of possibility given what we already know of as real, right?
Theism expands on what is real in believing that there is a mind behind the creation of this universe which in itself makes literally anything which humans can imagine, possible to experience...not in this universe but in the next phase [afterlife]...so - as usual - "not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible." is only true from a non-theist position, although some theist beliefs are more aligned with Emergence Theory than others....
Once again, how do you actually know? Just because a mind, even the mind of God, can conceive an idea, does not mean it actually gets to play out in the world of space and time. It simply does not follow. Hence, it need not be possible.....
For example, I do not believe God would ever allow something like a being suffering in boiling oil for 1000 millennia. He would simply never allow such a thing, even though it is in his mind because he is omniscient.... Because he is too merciful he would not allow it; hence it is not possible.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14164
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #9William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:24 pmTrue that, from the position of someone who believes in [for example] Emergence Theory.Dimmesdale wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 5:11 pmAnd as I like to repeat, not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible. There are limits on what is possible -- not only what is rationally permissible via our own concepts, but because of the limits that objective reality imposes on possibilia.William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 4:15 pmOne could look at a horse, a narwhal, and a flamingo and say from that 'it is possible that somewhere in this vast expanse of time space, pink unicorns could exist...as actual things...it is not outside the realm of possibility given what we already know of as real, right?
Theism expands on what is real in believing that there is a mind behind the creation of this universe which in itself makes literally anything which humans can imagine, possible to experience...not in this universe but in the next phase [afterlife]...so - as usual - "not everything that is imaginable, or even conceivable, has to be possible." is only true from a non-theist position, although some theist beliefs are more aligned with Emergence Theory than others....
It is a matter of fact that I simply took the first lines of your statements in the OP, because it seemed to me that this was not a given.It CAN be true from a theist position (my own position). But, you are free to disagree. I would say though, that you have no way of knowing whether it is true or false. You have no way to gauge the actual fact. It is, again, at best a "maybe." Else, you haven't payed attention to anything I've written in this thread.
As far a theistic beliefs in general go - the only way to gauge if the next phase has those attributes which enable imagined things to be made to be experience as real things, would indeed only be able to be seen as 'true' or 'false' for the individual when that individual departs the human form and the individual does indeed continue on into the next phase...
There is no reason I can see as to why it does not follow...that it need not be possible. For one, I think we are all currently aspects of The Creator Mind individuate within the experience of Human Form within what we call the physical universe.Once again, how do you actually know? Just because a mind, even the mind of God, can conceive an idea, does not mean it actually gets to play out in the world of space and time. It simply does not follow. Hence, it need not be possible.....
Thus everything which is currently experienced in this universe has been created [imagined by the God Mind] for that purpose.
And as individuate aspects of The Creator Mind, we all have the similar ability to create our own experiences through imagination and accompanying beliefs...such is severely retarded in our current universe because of the design of all that is our current universe being experienced.
That is temporary...
It is possible. Say we were in a universe with no such problems that humans have in this current universe.For example, I do not believe God would ever allow something like a being suffering in boiling oil for 1000 millennia. He would simply never allow such a thing, even though it is in his mind because he is omniscient.... Because he is too merciful he would not allow it; hence it is not possible.
Could we argue that "God would ever allow something like a being suffering in such conditions" just based upon the fact that in our alternate universe, such things are unheard of?
Yes we could.
Does that mean such a universe was not created where suffering happens?
Of course not, because we are currently experiencing such a universe where suffering [even for the innocent] happens all the time, so know that is not actually the case.
Therefore, yes. It is possible for an individual in the next phase to experience such a thing as "suffering in boiling oil for 1000 millennia." if that individual so happens to create that experience for itself. So "God" would allow that but would also have ways set up in which said individual who created such a horrific circumstance for itself, is potentially enabled to get free of that situation.
I expand upon this idea in a thread I created called "The Three Biblical Interpretations About Afterlife" where [3] happens to be what the next phase experienced will be like.
- Dimmesdale
- Sage
- Posts: 788
- Joined: Mon May 29, 2017 7:19 pm
- Location: Vaikuntha Dham
- Has thanked: 28 times
- Been thanked: 89 times
Re: Does All Actuality Imply Possibility?
Post #10Alright, what about eternal suffering then? Suffering that is infinite and without any end whatsoever. That is conceivable in the mind of the Creator. Does that mean it is possible?William wrote: ↑Sat Apr 24, 2021 7:56 pm Therefore, yes. It is possible for an individual in the next phase to experience such a thing as "suffering in boiling oil for 1000 millennia." if that individual so happens to create that experience for itself. So "God" would allow that but would also have ways set up in which said individual who created such a horrific circumstance for itself, is potentially enabled to get free of that situation.
That would seem to go against pantheism, if we are all parts of the divine, destined sooner or later to reunite with Source. So within your own worldview that would not be possible. Even though it is still very much imaginable.
I hope you and I agree at least that eternal hell is little more than gross superstition.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein