Philosophy, Riddles and complete mind[bleep]s

[Zierro]

Ok, I'm just going to shut down my brain at this point. (I say this in good humor)

 

 

I really dislike the view "you cant know anything"

 

Are you sure you dislike it? Or are you actually just living in the matrix, being conditioned to 'believe' such a thing because androids are pumping electrical currents to your brain that's in a stasis chamber in a futuristic warehouse named Solipsism Incorporated? I mean, it is a bit suspicious how you said you were going to shut your brain down... Hmm....

[Assume Nothing]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

[Dupin]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

Impossibility would be impossible - and, therefore, possible.

[Assume Nothing]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

Impossibility would be impossible - and, therefore, possible.

 

If impossibility is impossible, it is no longer possible.

[Zygimantas]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

No.

[Assume Nothing]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

No.

If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible.

[Dupin]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

No.

If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible.

A paradox. Mind blowing to the two people in the world who've never heard it before.

[Nenga]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

No.

If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible.

A paradox. Mind blowing to the two people in the world who've never heard it before.

No, sure, if everything is possible, then it is true that it is not possible for anything to be impossible, but not everything is impossible. It does not a paradox make.

[sees_all1]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

No.

If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible.

You're using language wrong.

"Can be" does not mean "is".

 

Also, you're using Boolean operators incorrectly.

[mughinn]

i guess absolute possibles are impossible :)

[Assume Nothing]

If anything is possible, can anything be impossible?

No.

If nothing can be impossible, then impossibility isn't possible, therefore not anything can be possible.

You're using language wrong.

"Can be" does not mean "is".

 

Also, you're using Boolean operators incorrectly.

 

I think he means, can impossibility be possible in a world where anything is possible?

 

Like this, I am immortal therefor it is impossible for me to die, however if its impossible for me to die then how can I live in a world where ANYTHING is possible?

 

Conversely, I am mortal therefor it is impossible for me to live forever, however if it is impossible for me to live forever then how can I live in a world where ANYTHING is possible?

 

Exactly what I meant. It's basically an altered version of the Omnipotence paradox, which goes "Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

[Dupin]

However, my existence is nothing. In two hundred years, I will be a name, a memory. In five hundred, I will be unusual if I am even a name on a piece of paper. In one thousand, I will be nothing. We all will be nothing. Everything around you, every moment, every hope, dream, pain, feeling, is nothing. And even then, it is all within our small reference frame of the Earth. In this sense, none of it exists.

 

We cannot experience when we lack existence. Therefore your hopes, dreams, pains, and feelings are everything.

Prove.

 

We're sort of saying the same thing, but prove that anything actually matters, and is therefore "everything" rather than "nothing".

[TTanT]

However, if the being was truly omnipotent, it could simply make that question cease to exist, and thus save everyone a lot of trouble.

[Zygimantas]

However, my existence is nothing. In two hundred years, I will be a name, a memory. In five hundred, I will be unusual if I am even a name on a piece of paper. In one thousand, I will be nothing. We all will be nothing. Everything around you, every moment, every hope, dream, pain, feeling, is nothing. And even then, it is all within our small reference frame of the Earth. In this sense, none of it exists.

 

We cannot experience when we lack existence. Therefore your hopes, dreams, pains, and feelings are everything.

Prove.

 

We're sort of saying the same thing, but prove that anything actually matters, and is therefore "everything" rather than "nothing".

The way I see it, there is no "nothing" or "everything". All of it is just human notion, our brains make signals into something. But they are just signals. As soon as the mind touches something it becomes an illusion, these words are just illusions. If you truly become aware of it, then you can go beyond those signals . That is why I support buddhism.

[Zierro]

However, my existence is nothing. In two hundred years, I will be a name, a memory. In five hundred, I will be unusual if I am even a name on a piece of paper. In one thousand, I will be nothing. We all will be nothing. Everything around you, every moment, every hope, dream, pain, feeling, is nothing. And even then, it is all within our small reference frame of the Earth. In this sense, none of it exists.

 

We cannot experience when we lack existence. Therefore your hopes, dreams, pains, and feelings are everything.

Prove.

 

We're sort of saying the same thing, but prove that anything actually matters, and is therefore "everything" rather than "nothing".

 

Your hopes, dreams, pains, and feelings are all you have to work with in life, therefore constituting as your [limited humanistic] perception of "everything". Not that that matters though, because in the universal grand scheme of things, nothing matters (or should I say nothing doesn't matter? :shades: ). So you're right - we are saying the same thing, but I wanted to be obscure about it

[sees_all1]

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

Same question as "Does an omnipotent being have the power to make itself no longer omnipotent?" Obvious answer is yes, but why would it ever want to?

[Assume Nothing]

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

Same question as "Does an omnipotent being have the power to make itself no longer omnipotent?" Obvious answer is yes, but why would it ever want to?

 

If it creates that stone, it would cease to be omnipotent. If it can't create the stone because it is truely omnipotent and it can lift infinite weight, then was it ever omnipotent in the first place? (Obvious answer being no)

 

EDIT - It does prove one thing though. Omnipotence is only possible for a limited time slot, until it does something like make itself not omnipotent. Or, in other words, absolute omnipotence is impossible

 

Wiki Quote - The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.

[sees_all1]

"Could an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that even that being could not lift it?"

Same question as "Does an omnipotent being have the power to make itself no longer omnipotent?" Obvious answer is yes, but why would it ever want to?

 

If it creates that stone, it would cease to be omnipotent. If it can't create the stone because it is truely omnipotent and it can lift infinite weight, then was it ever omnipotent in the first place? (Obvious answer being no)

 

EDIT - It does prove one thing though. Omnipotence is only possible for a limited time slot, until it does something like make itself not omnipotent. Or, in other words, absolute omnipotence is impossible

 

Wiki Quote - The paradox states that if a being can perform any action, then it should be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. Yet, on the other hand, if it cannot create a task it is unable to perform, then there exists something it cannot do.

 

"Can but choose not" to is not the same as "can't".

I see the whole issue as not the omnipotent entity having the power to create the stone, but the issue of the omnipotent entity limiting itself.

[TTanT]

However, if the being was truly omnipotent, it could simply make that question cease to exist, and thus save everyone a lot of trouble.

 

The ability to hide a question - maybe zap it from anyone who thinks it's minds does not solve the problem.

 

If omnipotence breaks down at the margins then it does not exist. What would be a God would be an incredibly knowledgeable and powerful being but it certainly cannot be truly infinite as that would be impossible (by the own paradox proposed)

If the question is never asked, then the answer is never pondered, and the god's power remains.

[Guest Rob]

What if he weakens himself then creates the rock, so he cannot lift it? Then becomes stronger, and proceeds to lift it?

[Assume Nothing]

What if he weakens himself then creates the rock, so he cannot lift it? Then becomes stronger, and proceeds to lift it?

 

We're talking about omnipotence here. If he weakens himself, he will become almighty, not omnipotent. So essentially, sees_all is right, accidental omnipotence is entirely possible, however, absolute omnipotence is not.

[Junkmutt]

But would an omnipotent being transcend logic or would it still be applied to it?

[krimi]

Why does it seem that conservatism and liberalism has lost their basic meanings in american politics? Then again, who am i to define "basic meanings?"

[Zygimantas]

I realized: For anything to be there, nothing had to be there first....

[Giordano]

Why does it seem that conservatism and liberalism has lost their basic meanings in american politics? Then again, who am i to define "basic meanings?"

Yeah, explain that. What would the basic meaning for a liberal be? Change and progress? And of a Conservative? Status Quo? If so, it seems not too different before than now.