What's Possible...

[Icarus Fallen]

...existentially?

Question(s) for Debate: ( )

Is it 'possible' that X exists, if, in fact, X doesn't exist?

In other words: does the actuality WRT the existence of certain theoretical entities (namely those that don't actually exist) negate the mere possibility that they do?

[Icarus Fallen]

My own $.02: I think it's important to bear in mind a vital aspect of the word “possible� - specifically capability. Accordingly, the phrase, “It’s possible that X exists�, isn't just a statement that X does or doesn't exist; it's also an affirmation of X’s capability to do so. In my view, this is what makes it the stuff of conjecture, at least where many postulated entities are concerned. In line with this: “it’s possible that X exists� really means, “X is capable of existence, and does or doesn’t presently exist�.

Definitions:

Pa = "X is capable of existing."

Pb = "X does or doesn’t presently exist."

Y = "X exists"

Note that Y entails Pa. So Pa, if Y, is necessarily true. Linguistically, this is simply a statement of the obvious, that if X exists, it's capability to do so is a given.

On the other hand, as far as X's capability to exist is concerned, ~Y is completely ambivalent. I.E. that X doesn't presently exist ...holds no implicit sway over Pa, as X still may or may not be capable of coming into existence.

However, I think deference should be given to the “may not� prospect which is often ignored. In my opinion, what is not necessarily capable of existing should not be tagged as ‘possibly existent’, because, simply put: it might not be so!

[McCulloch]

The essence of this is determinism. If the universe is deterministic, then it would be impossible for what is to be different from what it turned out to be.

[Icarus Fallen]

[...]If the universe is deterministic, then it would be impossible for what is to be different from what it turned out to be.

Yes, and we might as well face it: what is the case ...is the case, irrespective of our ignorance as to what is, in fact, the case. That's a truism that goes beyond the definitions of the words employed in its phrasing.

[tar2]

Icarus Fallen,

And in a certain way "presently exists" is rather ambiguous, as given the speed of light as a limitation, there is no viewpoint available which could properly experience all locations and all ages at once (checking for the existence of X).

Regards, TAR

[FinalEnigma]

I don't think that possible exists in the current time frame. Something either exists, or it doesn't.

within the current time frame, something either exists, or it doesn't. To say that it's possible, only means that you do not have the information to determine whether it does, or does not, exist.

if the existence of something is taken into consideration of whether or not it might exists, it is not possible for something that does not exist to exist.

[tar2]

FinalEnigma,

What exactly do you mean by "the current timeframe"?

For instance, if I say there are currently no super novas happening within 1000 lightyears of Earth and 50 years from now we see a super nova at a distance of 700 light years?

Does a super nova currently exist within 1000 light years of Earth, or not?

Regards, TAR

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

[...]in a certain way "presently exists" is rather ambiguous, as given the speed of light as a limitation, there is no viewpoint available which could properly experience all locations and all ages at once (checking for the existence of X).

I'm reluctant to agree on a few fronts.

First, in my view, whatever "presently exists" does so ...whether the speed of light is a phenomenal boundary that imposes limitations beyond those known by human perception or not. The capacity (or lack thereof) to perceive an existent aspect or an occurring event is thereby irrelevant to their respective actualities.

Second, even granting C, the denial of a singular, potentially 'omniscient' viewpoint isn't necessarily called for, allowing only for the prospect that 'divine perception' may be transcendent in relation to any physical 'constant' ...perhaps by virtue of its own brand of constancy.

Finally (and full disclosure: this is coming from a strident pantheist of no religious affiliation whatsoever), invoking the monistic paradigm allows for a number of basic phenomenological assumptions, not least of which being the principle of interconnectivity. Accordingly, my level of awareness of any of the specifics of 'present' activity beyond my personal field of perception is of no consequence to the principle that 'you', 'I', and all of those distant actors are merely subjective aspects of one and the same object -- the only "object" that exists: The Universe, which I call "God".

[Icarus Fallen]

FE,

I don't think that possible exists in the current time frame. Something either exists, or it doesn't.

I think you're on the right track, but...

[...]within the current time frame, something either exists, or it doesn't. To say that it's possible, only means that you do not have the information to determine whether it does, or does not, exist.

...to say that it's possible may also affirm an aspect for which "information" might be insufficient to justify the affirmation. In such cases, the use of the modalic phrase, "possibly existent", shouldn't necessarily be granted, ...even though some of the beings in question may be actually existent!

[...]if the existence of something is taken into consideration of whether or not it might exists, it is not possible for something that does not exist to exist.

Agreed.

[Icarus Fallen]

T2,

I realize you weren't addressing me, but still...

[...]if I say there are currently no super novas happening within 1000 lightyears of Earth and 50 years from now we see a super nova at a distance of 700 light years?

...if I'm alive at age 89 (And let me tell you, I don't plan to be!), I'll probably say you were clearly mistaken in your choice of language 50 years earlier, and that the fact that no SN's were presently visible to terrestrials within a 1k LY radius at the time you made the statement ...should not have been used to underpin the claim that none had 'happened' (or that none are "currently happening") at any point within that 1k interim.

Does a super nova currently exist within 1000 light years of Earth, or not?

Ask again ...in a thousand years.