CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
By definition, nothing cannot be possible while being impossible, or vice versa. Therefore, if one event is possible, then any impossible events must be different to it in some way(s).
Certain events don't become "possible", however, a similar and new event is sometimes possible due to different factors at play. They're two different events separated by time and/or location.
Of course, and it's really obvious if you change the timeframe and angle on the question slightly.
Old question: Can the impossible become possible?
New question: Of all things that are possible today, were any previously impossible?
I can, off the top of my head, think of numerous cases that satisfy the latter question. As each of these represents an impossibility that has become possible, each also satisfies the former question.
The passage of time suggests different circumstances, different circumstances are different possibilities and impossibilities.
Travelling to the moon is not different based on the time period.
No, it isn't. When assessing the possibility of it, factoring out the time period is fallacious.
Let's go back in time when we couldn't rocket to the moon.
womwomwom~womwomwom~zhhhuuuooo~~~~~
Guy1: It's impossible for humans to get to the moon.
Guy2: Well, actually, there may be a way, but we're just unaware of it at the moment. But if we wanted to go right now , then we surely know that's impossible, because we do not have that level of technology.
And there's nothing that suggests that we will never be able to do it.
So its logical to say that "Its not possible right now" and fallacious to say "that it is impossible", due to the fact that the statement suggests that you can see into the future.
~~~~wimwimwim~wimwimwim~ssiiiiiiuuu~
Meaning that it was impossible at that moment, but not in itself.
Since we've advanced far enough to prove we can do it, then In itself, it was never an impossibility.
You say his point is my point, then you say my assessment of him is wrong which means my point isn't his point.
Then you say we view "impossible" differently which contradicts your first aforementioned point. And now you are saying that based off what I said he is correct , which contradicts your first and 2nd point.
You say his point is my point, then you say my assessment of him is wrong which means my point isn't his point.
Your assessment was that he said something different than you. Which means if I am right, you guys have the same point and you are misinterpreting him.
Then you say we view "impossible" differently which contradicts your first aforementioned point. And now you are saying that based off what I said he is correct , which contradicts your first and 2nd point.
I didn't say he was correct, I said that you were wrong.
Yes, that does answer the question rather directly. I probably should have clarified a bit more. I was really getting at the definitions of the two words. If something is impossible then it cannot become possible, otherwise it was never impossible to do in the first place. I was getting to some conclusion around these lines, but your post does answer the question correctly.
If something is impossible then it cannot become possible, otherwise it was never impossible to do in the first place.
If this is the definition of impossibility that we're using, I assert that nothing is in fact impossible, as the probability/impossibility of any given event is dependent on numerous circumstances which may be subject to change.
I should also note that the burden of proof for classifying anything as impossible under your definition is impossible under our current circumstances ;)
Just so I understand. You are saying that a conditional impossibility becomes possible when the conditions permit it. This is not the same as saying that an impossible thing can become possible at the same time or in the same respect. Is this correct?
I should note, however, that I don't make a distinction between 'conditional' impossibility and impossibility as you seem to; I consider all possibility/impossibility to be conditional.
Zero can be represented with a circle, and the number zero is a perfect square.
As I noted on the right side, a 4-sphere could be described as a square circle.
If a square is rotated through 360 degrees, the outer corners will trace a circle along the outside, and the centerpoints of each side will outline a circle in the negative space within the square.
A square piece of paper can be rolled into a circle.
A series of squares can be arranged in a circle directly.
A series of circles can be arranged into a square shape; A square printed by most printers takes the form of numerous tiny circles.
Your first answer is best. I'm afraid I need to be more specific. Can the what we call Earth be what we call Pluto at the same time and in the same respect?
Can the what we call Earth be what we call Pluto at the same time and in the same respect?
Is the big bang considered possible? If so, then there is a possibility that what we now call the earth and what we now call pluto were one and the same at one time, and will eventually be one and the same again.
I was wondering, if the impossible can become possible was it really an impossibility? It is possible for me to crush an egg, it is also possible to he to not crush an egg. It is impossible for me to uncrush an egg.
Can the impossible become possible? No, the egg will remain crushed.
Even now, it would theoretically be possible to use a siphon of some sort to capture the innards of the egg and hold them, and painstakingly reassemble the fragments of the egg with superglue, re-adding the innards towards the end and re-sealing it. In theory, this could even be done with a fertilized egg without killing the developing embryo, though in practice it would almost certainly be exposed to pathogens that would kill it before it finished developing.
Not good enough? Ok, good point- it's not an uncrushed egg, it's an egg that has had it's crushed shell glued back together. I can do one better from a theoretical perspective; Suppose the actual chemical process that the chicken uses to construct the 'shell' of the egg is co-opted, the fragments of the shell dissolved in a solution of some kind that is then used to recreate it, with the innards of the egg similarly re-added towards the end of the process. This time the end result is an uncrushed egg with an intact shell, and the egg has been effectively uncrushed.
Ridiculous. How about a round trip to the moon? Completely impossible for most of our history, made possible by technology.
Unless you're suggesting that there is a way to travel to and from the moon that is not reliant on generations and generations of technological advances built overtop of one another, then this is the case. Impossible means a probability of zero. If you're suggesting that a round trip to the moon was always possible, you are asserting that the probability of a successful round trip is non-zero even if no technology is utilized whatsoever- I'd like to see you back that.
