When we say something is possible, where does this possibility exist?

Is it in, for lack of a better term, a Possibility Heaven? Wherein resides all possibilities?

Or does it exist as a "possibility seed" within the objects which are now existent?

the later.

Observably, the latter, but in principle, who knows?

When we say something is possible, where does this possibility exist?

Is it in, for lack of a better term, a Possibility Heaven? Wherein resides all possibilities?

Or does it exist as a "possibility seed" within the objects which are now existent?

Possibility doesn't exist its just a concept...in reality there are no statistical chances...

Draqon, Zephyr:

Why do you think this?

Vitalone:

How do you figure?

It's all in your mind - or that of the person who believes that a particular thing is possible.

When we say something is possible, where does this possibility exist?
Is it in, for lack of a better term, a Possibility Heaven? Wherein resides all possibilities?
Or does it exist as a "possibility seed" within the objects which are now existent?

Possibility only exists in the mind of the person who conceives of it.

A tree has always been just a tree ...until someone cut a bunch of 'em down to stack them up to make the walls of a house. A log was always just a log until someone thought of splitting them in half so as to make two "logs" from one log.

No, possibility is a mental concept, a mental image, ...and obviously one that's a "first time" concept or image.

However, I like that "Possibility Heaven" answer ...hmmmm? :D

I have this image of a place in the universe, like a giant library, wehre all of the possibilities are stored according to some interesting criteria. Hmm?

Baron Max

Killjoy, Baron Max:

It's all in your mind - or that of the person who believes that a particular thing is possible.

Possibility only exists in the mind of the person who conceives of it.

Whereas it is certainly true that we conceive of possibility mentally, it would seem that the notion of "what is possible" goes back to the object.

For instance, Baron Max, you bring up the log in the tree. Clearly, the tree had something that allowed for said log to be harvested from it, yes? If it didn't, such would not be possible, yes?

We should also speak of -realized- possibilities. For instance, it is not true that simply because we can broadly envision a pink unicorn popping out of a tree that it is possible that such could happen. Rather, the tree would refute this notion. As it is really the -tree- that is refuting this, then can't we say that possibilities inhere less in the mind, and more in the objects themselves?

Is it possible for fish to change into humans?

Baron Max:

However, I like that "Possibility Heaven" answer ...hmmmm?

I have this image of a place in the universe, like a giant library, where all of the possibilities are stored according to some interesting criteria. Hmm?

An excellent picture of it, I imagine.

IceAgeCivilizations:

Over millions of generations in a framework of natural selection: Evidently, yes.

So it is biologically possible for fish to turn into humans?

Through evolutionary processes, yes.

Not some form of were-fish.

But there is no evidence that fish can turn into humans "through evolutionary processes."

IceAgeCivilizations:

There is mountains of evidence, as given by the scientific community for 120 years.

However, let's not debate evolution v. creation here. This thread is not about stuff of that nature. If you want to go elsewhere, I suppose we can.

There must be limits on the possible, because all things are obviously not possible at once. Examples of paradox reveal this irrefutably. It is not possible for a single geometric shape to be both a circle and a square at the same time.

So, since all things are not possible, possibility must have restrictions inherent in any system. Since systems can be quite complex, it is impossible to create a universal notion of "possibility". We have to be clear about the system we are describing, and note that those possibilities only apply to that system.

That's why I don't think possibility can even be thought of as a seed within an object. It depends on the forces in play as well. The entire system matters. How much gravity is present? What is the atmospheric makeup? The potential for wood to burn is dependent on Oxygen, so there is obviously an interplay between fuel and combustible that isn't present in either one singularly.

Killjoy, Baron Max:





Whereas it is certainly true that we conceive of possibility mentally, it would seem that the notion of "what is possible" goes back to the object.

For instance, Baron Max, you bring up the log in the tree. Clearly, the tree had something that allowed for said log to be harvested from it, yes? If it didn't, such would not be possible, yes?

We should also speak of -realized- possibilities. For instance, it is not true that simply because we can broadly envision a pink unicorn popping out of a tree that it is possible that such could happen. Rather, the tree would refute this notion. As it is really the -tree- that is refuting this, then can't we say that possibilities inhere less in the mind, and more in the objects themselves?

I think the possibility remains in the mind. A matter of perception.

True, a given object has the potential to serve many purposes. To be transformed, re-shaped, or rendered into something else. Also that the potential is limited to what the laws of nature/physics/etc. allow.

Still, without a "conceptualizer" - somebody with a bright idea - I don't think these possibilities technically exist. A potential may remain, but the possibility is the idea that the object can serve some other purpose or function.

Killjoy:

Yet if these possibilities don't exist, how can they manifest when no one is around to wonder whether this could do that, or this could do this?

Swivel:

So you think that one cannot reduce possibility to any one object, but must consider all the objects it could possibly relate to for the possibility? So it is not enough that merely "wood can burn", but "wood also requires some oxygen to burn" and the potential to burn would be between them?

Killjoy:

Yet if these possibilities don't exist, how can they manifest when no one is around to wonder whether this could do that, or this could do this?

In the case of, say, an organism which evolves into another, I have to admit it seems the possibility is inherent in the creature itself - unless of course this is described by potential.

I feel a bit like I'm playing at semantics...
Possibility
Potential
Are they the same thing ?

Would an inanimate object have potential, which can only be rendered into possibility by some mind conceiving of that "hitherto unknown" aspect, while a living thing "possesses" possibility by virtue of the fact that it can become something else on its own by evolving or adapting ?

The case of trees, for example...
Plants can evolve, and hence would seem to have certain inherent possibilities, yet this capacity does not mean that they can become lumber, or the hull of a boat, which requires that someone conceive of those possibilities.

Killjoy:

Potential and possibility seem to describe the same thing.

Whereas it is certainly true that we conceive of possibility mentally, it would seem that the notion of "what is possible" goes back to the object.

For instance, Baron Max, you bring up the log in the tree. Clearly, the tree had something that allowed for said log to be harvested from it, yes? If it didn't, such would not be possible, yes?

We should also speak of -realized- possibilities. For instance, it is not true that simply because we can broadly envision a pink unicorn popping out of a tree that it is possible that such could happen. Rather, the tree would refute this notion. As it is really the -tree- that is refuting this, then can't we say that possibilities inhere less in the mind, and more in the objects themselves?

And right there is the reason that I don't like "philosophy". It begins to go off on weird, odd, strange, bullshit symantics as if it's really "philosophy". It ain't!! It's just playing with words and trying to form them into something that is not, and never was, intended .......and then arguing endlessly using the very same words to do nothing but continue the argument.

Wasted, foolish effort ...and not worthy of anyone's attention except .....dare I say it? ..philosophers!

Baron Max

Swivel:

So you think that one cannot reduce possibility to any one object, but must consider all the objects it could possibly relate to for the possibility? So it is not enough that merely "wood can burn", but "wood also requires some oxygen to burn" and the potential to burn would be between them?

The problem with that is you limit the possibilities of each object to known interactions, when objects obviously have unknown properties in other, potential systems. It is safer and more accurate to only talk about the properties of known things in known systems.

Also, there are emergent behaviors that are unpredictable until a certain number of things are together, or are in a particular system.

And right there is the reason that I don't like "philosophy". It begins to go off on weird, odd, strange, bullshit symantics as if it's really "philosophy". It ain't!! It's just playing with words and trying to form them into something that is not, and never was, intended .......and then arguing endlessly using the very same words to do nothing but continue the argument.

Wasted, foolish effort ...and not worthy of anyone's attention except .....dare I say it? ..philosophers!

Baron Max

And yet Philosophers described sciences before they were discovered, inspired art before it was conceived, gave birth to the enlightenment and tempered the minds of Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, Da Vinci, really countless other "useful" persons.

And yet Philosophers described sciences before they were discovered, inspired art before it was conceived, gave birth to the enlightenment and tempered the minds of Albert Einstein, Ben Franklin, Da Vinci, really countless other "useful" persons.

I disagree. Most of those individuals were "scientists" and "do-ers", not talkers of continual bullshit and worthless play-games of symantics.

Baron Max

"Not only the god play dice, but the dice are loaded."

Word-game and semantics.

All of the above were philosophers. Yes they were other things, too.

Mostly philosopher-only people inspire others. Perhaps your right - on first glance fairly unimportant sands to conquering minds pebbles, to geniuses marbles, to the huge rocks of revolutionaries. They do however, fill in the spaces quite nicely.

Still isn't it quite nice there are people in this day and age, are paid only to "think" and perhaps write it down. Nothing else? I love it.

Anyone can be a philosopher, so few even try.

"Anyone can be a philosopher, so few even try." How is that supposed to make sense?

Draqon, Zephyr:

Why do you think this?

For my part, causality. As far as we can observe, possibilities don't just materialise. Things come into existence due to the actions of things previously in existence.

Draqon, Zephyr:

Why do you think this?



Everything in this world is cyclical. All are seeds to that which gives rise to a new substance. Our atoms which once made our bodies will be part of the ground, trees, air, and than a star.

When we say something is possible, where does this possibility exist?

Is it in, for lack of a better term, a Possibility Heaven? Wherein resides all possibilities?

Or does it exist as a "possibility seed" within the objects which are now existent?

Possibility derives from the ability for recombination. As it seems that there are infinite amounts of recombination available in this universe, we say that there are infinite possibilities. Recombination can occur in forms of types of matter or energy interactions.

These possibilities do not 'exist' per se. Either that or they are all existing at once.

When we say something is possible, where does this possibility exist?
Your mind and in the universe.