5 Answers

  1. If we consider your question from the point of view of formal logic, then-if everything is possible (general case), then the impossible is possible (special case of everything). But the impossible is the negation of the possible. A contradiction. The answer is incorrect.

    Option 2-Not everything is possible in the universe, including the impossible is impossible. This option is logical and possible. There are only two options, the third one is not given, the first option is incorrect, therefore the second option is correct.

    If we consider your question from the point of view of astrophysics, then in the Universe it is possible only that which goes in accordance with the fundamental laws of nature, and it is impossible that which contradicts them.

  2. What do you mean, “anything is possible”? A lot of things are impossible in the universe: it is not possible to move faster than the speed of light; it is not possible to leave the area under the event horizon of a black hole; it is impossible for white dwarfs with a mass exceeding the Chandrasekhar limit to exist… And in general, a lot of things are not possible.

  3. All the answers will not be correct, because they are known by knowledge, and knowledge is obtained from known sources, and known sources are created from proven ones, and proven ones are confirmed ones that are based on the belief that they are confirmed! Therefore, in a world created by an explosion, everything is possible, just as in a world created by the Creator!

  4. If your statement that “everything is possible in the universe” is true, then nothing can be impossible. Stupid logic (formal).

    Therefore, we can only challenge your original statement.

    Vladimir Bombin did this theoretically (as far as he managed to decide for yourself, I don't know how to evaluate). In my opinion, he saw a contradiction where in fact it does not exist.

    I can only offer a practical approach (theories themselves require verification, which is not always available and even possible “in principle”). I see a lot of things that are not possible in the universe (at least for myself). Therefore, I am ready to risk “winning the game from you with a mat in two moves”. The first move is like this-there is one for you (personally) anything impossible?

    Answer in the comments (if you answer “Yes”, then you have already lost in one move, if you answer “No”, then I will make the next “knight move”, which will definitely checkmate, I am 100% sure of this).

    The trick is that either you are NOT the Universe (which means you have no right to say anything “on its behalf”), or you are the Universe (you have the right to say so), but then I will be able to offer you what is known (in my es-sno) It's impossible for you. )))

  5. There is some uncertainty in the question. On the one hand, if everything is possible, then the impossible is also possible.

    But this is if in the question the word ” is “means ” possible”, i.e. “the impossible is also possible”. However, if the word “is” is understood as “presence” or “presence” (which is closer in its meaning), then the question gets a completely different meaning. – “If everything is possible, then there must be a place for the impossible in this for everything?” I.e., among the possible, the impossible must be present as a class. Something like a philosophical question about the relationship between Being and Non-being.

    It is clear that the author most likely asked the question in its first version of understanding. Judging by the answers, the responders understood it the same way. I think it stems from the generally accepted idea in science that everything in the world arises by chance. There are all sorts of galaxies, different planets, lives and minds. Now there are even entire universes. And since everything, including such highly organized systems as life and society, arose by random search, then why not everything else be formed in the same way? Quite a reasonable question.

    It is clear, of course, that physics imposes some restrictions on all this mess. But this is a drop in the bucket. Even with them, there is such boundless scope for the “possibility of the impossible” that theoretical physicists have long warmed their heads over the “anthropic principle”. And what about ordinary people? We told them about random selection, and now we get the same questions.

Leave a Reply