# Possibility != Existence **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538 "2003-02-03T17:32:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 27
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2003, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/521 "2003-02-14T20:35:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*Ah. > > What’s ‘good’? \*\* It is, like subtle humor, an exercise for the reader. (For context, look above, where I said I recognized that this proof was problematic, and quit biting my heels!) Daniel ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/522 "2003-02-15T00:42:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > It’s not possible to maximize cruelty and kindness simultaneously (assuming that cruelty and kindness are in fact opposed, which is much harder to determine than it sounds). I do not find the “rock so heavy he can’t lift it” argument very appealing, myself. > [@](#): > > For any property X to be increased, property not-X must be reduced. Obviously. But that’s like saying logic will never be perfect because it doesn’t prove all false things true. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/523 "2003-02-15T01:34:06Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > \*\*But that’s like saying logic will never be perfect because it doesn’t prove all false things true. \*\* Almost. It’s saying that logic will never be perfect because it can’t go beyond what’s true and false. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/524 "2003-02-15T01:53:25Z")
But the point is that you don’t maximize opposites simultaneously… indeed, they wouldn’t be opposites if you could. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/525 "2003-02-15T04:22:12Z")
**Almost. It’s saying that logic will never be perfect because it can’t go beyond what’s true and false.** No, logic can never be perfect, mainly because words have no absolute meaning. Our words have only an evolutionary function, and so therefore, ( smile) logic has function only within a local frame. So it follows (smile) that the abstract “Reality” can only exist as a semantical construction. But alas, to our unhappy end, the exercise of all forms of mathematics serves us even worse. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/526 "2003-02-15T15:43:08Z")
Post-modernists. [sigh] You don’t think it’s possible that there can be an actual reality, and that words can reflect this reality well or poorly? And what makes you think that mathematics serves us poorly? Mathematics _works_. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/527 "2003-02-15T18:28:31Z")
**Post-modernists. [sigh]** \* ~ Vorlon’s Aide\* You lose Aide, you first resorted to name-calling. Math is for parlor tricks. Choose your set of calculations and you can build an atomic bomb. Big deal. But although the human mind cannot conceptualize the absence of everything without the existence of something to provide contrast, through words we can imagine this state, while the best of mathematical calculations cannot. 0 + 0 = 0 is a true statement. “From nothing came something” is truer. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/528 "2003-02-15T19:45:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > You don’t think it’s possible that there can be an actual reality, and that words can reflect this reality well or poorly? Most everyone agrees there is a reality. It’s the niggling specifics that bother us. 🙂 > [@](#): > > And what makes you think that mathematics serves us poorly? Mathematics _works_. Of course, emphasizing “works” does not itself belie the criteria for such a standard. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/529 "2003-02-15T21:48:57Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Milum \* > **Post-modernists. [sigh]** \* ~ Vorlon’s Aide_ > You lose Aide, you first resorted to name-calling. What makes you think I was referring to you with a derogatory term? “Post-modernist” is descriptive. Check. > [@](#): > > Math is for parlor tricks. Choose your set of calculations and you can build an atomic bomb. Big deal. > > But although the human mind cannot conceptualize the absence of everything without the existence of something to provide contrast, through words we can imagine this state, while the best of mathematical calculations cannot. Your words _are_ mathematical calculations. Do you think your brain pulls them out of thin air? Checkmate. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/530 "2003-02-15T21:50:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **Most everyone agrees there is a reality. It’s the niggling specifics that bother us. 🙂** Such as the definition? 🙂 I understand your unwillingness to commit to what you see as an arbitrary definition of a very important concept. At the same time, any small child could easily give me an intelligible and meaningful answer to the question, “What does it mean if something isn’t real?” Why can’t you? > [@](#): > > \*\*Of course, emphasizing “works” does not itself belie the criteria for such a standard. \*\* No, working _is_ the standard. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/531 "2003-02-15T23:11:23Z")
* * * “Your words are mathematical calculations. Do you think your brain pulls them out of thin air?\_\_\_\_\_Checkmate.” * * * Now dagumit Aide, stop and think. “Words”. " Math". Two words. Two semantic entities. Two distinct definitions. Determinism is physical not mathematical. All mathematical exercises are nothing but the amusements of coincidenties found when adding and subtracting abstract numbers. Now move your dadgum knight and get my king out of check. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/532 "2003-02-15T23:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Milum \* > **"Words". " Math". Two words. Two semantic entities. Two distinct definitions. Determinism is physical not mathematical.** [sigh] They’re interchangable. > [@](#): > > \*\*All mathematical exercises are nothing but the amusements of coincidenties found when adding and subtracting abstract numbers. \*\* All language is nothing but the manipulation of concepts. English is a language. So is calculus. Both can describe. Both can describe well. Both can describe poorly.\*\* [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/533 "2003-02-15T23:42:28Z")
Finally caught up on this thread again, and I see something that I didn’t really expect: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\*True: \<\>~G \*\* This being the a priori answer, and being false if post priori. I’m glad to see you finally lay it out finally, even though it took a good 8 or so pages from when I first posted the “possibly does not exist” question untill this comment finally came out. However, this seems to make your whole logical proof of god’s existance _also_ only true a priori, and false post priori (In relation to the “it’s possible god does not exist” bit). It seems this whole thing comes down to which we accept first; “it is possible god exists,” or “it is possible god does not exist.” Both seem equally valid, yet result in completely contradictory results (Assuming we define god as “necessary existance,” of course). How are we supposed to determine which gets used first? Just pick one randomly? Use both, which contradict eachother? Or what? Can you explain? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/534 "2003-02-15T23:50:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Vorlon Ambassador’s Aide \* > \*\*No, working _is_ the standard. Methinks you left out a step in making that a standard. What “works”? How do you know when something “works”? I get the nagging suspicion that you feel we can isolate mathematics from our entire worldview and test it and say, “Yep, it works!” ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2003, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/535 "2003-02-15T23:54:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **Methinks you left out a step in making that a standard. What “works”? How do you know when something “works”?** By observation. The world we observe is all we need to explain or anticipate. If we can’t observe (read: interact with) it, it’s not real and we don’t need to have explanations, theories, or concepts that deal with it. If we can observe it, we can determine the correctness of our models by determining what the models predict and then determining what the reality does. Mathematics allows us to create models that can answer our questions meaningfully. That’s all it needs to do. _That_ is the basic idea behind empirical philosophy. (Please see _Empirical Philosophy II: The Vengeance_ for references.) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/536 "2003-02-16T00:15:18Z")
Well, this seems that it is quickly going to dissolve into another science debate, I won’t have a part in that. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2003, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/537 "2003-02-16T00:28:25Z")
Well, okay. [sigh] It’s been a privilege debating with you, **erislover**. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/538 "2003-02-17T15:55:20Z")
Hi everyone, I admit that i have not taken the time to read through all the posts so chances are someone has already posted this. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy overview of Ontological arguments, here [http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/ontological-arguments/](http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/ontological-arguments/) (3) Modal arguments: These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.e., claims about the possibility or necessity of God’s attributes and existence. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: a claim is possibly true just in case it is true in at least one possible world; a claim is necessarily true just in case it is true in every possible world; and a claim is contingent just in case it is true in some possible worlds and false in others. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i.e., that God exists in every possible world. Non-theists do not accept the claim that God exists in the actual world. Plainly enough, non-theists and necessitarian theists disagree about the layout of logical space, i.e., the space of possible worlds. The sample argument consists, in effect, of two premises: one which says that God exists in at least one possible world; and one which says that God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any. It is perfectly obvious that no non-theist can accept this pair of premises. Of course, a non-theist can allow – if they wish – that there are possible worlds in which there are contingent Gods. However, it is quite clear that no rational, reflective, etc. non-theist will accept the pair of premises in the sample argument. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2003, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/539 "2003-02-17T16:03:13Z")
So believers - believe, doubters - doubt! ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2003, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538/540 "2003-02-18T23:42:50Z")
I think **erl** has done a fine job of discussing some the most straightforward objection(s) to this proof. At the risk of adding nothing new, I think I would like to stress a couple of points that he made. **G=[]G** Is this a good definition for God? As others have noted, it specifies nothing other than necessary existence. Beyond that, though, why is necessary a predicate which we must set forth for God’s existence? As **erl** has noted, to do so appears to implicitely accept the ontological argument, which renders the proof moot. **\<\>G** Is this an acceptable axiom? **Lib** has argued that the obvious alternatives are invalid:[ul] [li] **~\<\>G** because it denies an ontological possibility a priori.[/li][li] **\<\>~G** because **\<\>~G** implies contigency and thus implies **\<\>G**.[/li][/ul] Now, there are times when denying an ontological possibility a priori is not a logical fallacy (in fact, logic is determined by such denials), but I agree with Lib that **~\<\>G** is a poor proposition to accept axiomatically. **\<\>~G** , however, is a different matter. As **erl** pointed out several pages back the **\<\>G \<-\> \<\>~G** relationship breaks down in the case of **~[]G** (or **[]G**, as the proof in question demonstrates). Thus, if we accept the proferred definition of G (or accept the axiom **G-\>[]G** absent the definition) it is by no means trivial to accept either **\<\>G** or **\<\>~G** as a “second axiom”. “Let us accept axiomatically that a being which exists in all possible worlds if it exists in any possible worlds exists in some possible world.” No, I don’t think I will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538.md?page=26) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/possibility-existence/152538.md?page=28)