Some things are logically impossible.
 
Other things are impossible in a given context.
 
Some things are known to be impossible, as opposed the somewhat common mistake that if one can't imagine how to do it it must therefore be impossible. But not knowing that some things are indeed impossible and therefore assuming that anything is possible is also a mistake.

  It's interesting that you think *logic* isn't a context as well. But not knowing that some things are indeed impossible and therefore assuming that anything is possible is also a mistake.
 
And you have this knowledge, how?

Pretzel Logic?

Nothing's pausable without a pause button.

eph221
  It's interesting that you think *logic* isn't a context as well. But not knowing that some things are indeed impossible and therefore assuming that anything is possible is also a mistake.
 
And you have this knowledge, how?

I could try to explain, but I know it would be impossible to explain to some people...

Is this convo pausable?

It does depend on logic, context and our current realm of knowledge.
 
At one point in our understanding of the universe, it was impossible for 2 things to occupy the same space. Then, it was qualified as impossible to occupy the same space/time. Now, it is 'impossible' to occupy the same space/time/dimension. What will the next 'impossibility' be?
 
I would still submit that anything is possible.
 
I guess it's a glass half full thing...

DrLumen
It does depend on logic, context and our current realm of knowledge.
 
At one point in our understanding of the universe, it was impossible for 2 things to occupy the same space. Then, it was qualified as impossible to occupy the same space/time. Now, it is 'impossible' to occupy the same space/time/dimension. What will the next 'impossibility' be?
 
I would still submit that anything is possible.
 
I guess it's a glass half full thing...

No. The fact that some things once thought to be impossible (though perhaps in a different context) were reclassified does not imply in any way that anything is possible. That's invalid reasoning in the technical sense of the word - the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.
 
The best you can argue is that some things thought to be impossible might in fact be possible, not that they are.

DrLumen
 
 
I would still submit that anything is possible.
 

 
It's not.
 
Honestly, I tried it.

drewfx1

DrLumen
It does depend on logic, context and our current realm of knowledge.
 
At one point in our understanding of the universe, it was impossible for 2 things to occupy the same space. Then, it was qualified as impossible to occupy the same space/time. Now, it is 'impossible' to occupy the same space/time/dimension. What will the next 'impossibility' be?
 
I would still submit that anything is possible.
 
I guess it's a glass half full thing...

No. The fact that some things once thought to be impossible (though perhaps in a different context) were reclassified does not imply in any way that anything is possible. That's invalid reasoning in the technical sense of the word - the conclusion simply does not follow from the premises.
 
The best you can argue is that some things thought to be impossible might in fact be possible, not that they are.

We are not going to get anywhere here. I know what your saying in that somewhere out there is an immutable impossibility. However, to perceive whatever you posit as 'proof' of impossibility would be rooted in our current or future realm of knowledge. With that said, there is no immutable proof - perhaps that is the impossibility. :) Either way, there will always be doubt hence possibility. Unless you have some extra-terrestrial intelligence we are not privy to... but, even then, same problem just different context.
 
Some believe that the universe was created by a supreme entity or it is an atom in the thumbnail of a giant. A seemingly immutable impossibility but, technically since they can't be dis-proven, both are possible.