As Banno pointed out, your argument does not follow.

It is the case that X. — wonderer1

My point of contention is this. How do you know that it is metaphysically impossible for you now and you before are not the same person? It is even physically possible for you not to be the same person: Last Thursdayism.

You said so: "However it isn't metaphysically possible ...← that the person who is posting as wonderer1 right now is not the same person as posted previously as wonderer1."

Your point sound confused in the methodology. Hypothesises are the methods for the scientific enquiries. Metaphysics and Logic do not adopt hypothesis as their methodology. — Corvus

I don't understand what this rebuttal says? If nothing exists, then nothing exists. This would include logic. A fortiori....

From the perspective of what is known to exist, however, logic can be characterized as order, versus disorder. And while order does exist, so does disorder, and the tendency to disorder. Disorder is not "logical" (by its very nature) but it does exist. The metaphysically really subsumes the logical.

So if we have some world within which exists only non-physical things, and if those non-physical things are destroyed (and in being non-physical are not subject to the law of conservation of energy), then what is left? I say that nothing is left.

It seems that either nothingness is metaphysically possible or (complete) destruction is metaphysically impossible.

Well, Metaphysical enquiry would say, sorry mate, you cannot destroy non-physical existence in physical way. They are all intact. They are still there.

As Banno pointed out, your argument does not follow. — Lionino

Right, I was expecting someone to point that out, and I'm hardly surprised that it was Banno.

My point of contention is this... — Lionino

Keep working on it. You are 'finding' problems that aren't there, and you didn't recognize the problem that was there.

Well, Metaphysical enquiry would say, sorry mate, you cannot destroy non-physical existence in physical way — Corvus

I’m not saying that they’d be destroyed in a physical way. If they’re spirits then they’d be destroyed in a spiritual way. If they’re magic then they’d be destroyed in a magical way. Either way they’d be destroyed leaving nothing left.

I’m not saying that they’d be destroyed in a physical way. If they’re spirits then they’d be destroyed in a spiritual way. If they’re magic then they’d be destroyed in a magical way. Either way they’d be destroyed leaving nothing left. — Michael

It would still say "Well prove how spirits could be destroyed in a spiritual way." or "By its nature, spirits have no capability or property for destroying." Therefore nothing is destroyed.

Or, to phrase it a different way; is the law of conservation of energy a metaphysical necessity? If not then it’s metaphysically possible that there is a world of physical objects that can be properly annihilated without producing new particles and in such a world if all physical objects were to be annihilated then it would be a world in which nothing exists.

It would still say "Well prove how spirits could be destroyed in a spiritual way." or "By its nature, spirits have no capability or property for destroying." Therefore nothing is destroyed. — Corvus

So you’re saying it’s metaphysically impossible for something to be destroyed (without creating something new in its place)?

I mean if spirits exist, they are metaphysically possible and so would be logical too.

We may even be more constrained in logic than in metaphysics, for there is a lot about the world which we do not know, and perhaps cannot know, given that we have biological minds.

Right, I was expecting someone to point that out, and I'm hardly surprised that it was Banno. — wonderer1

"I was only pretending to be dumb hah! You got trolled!"

Keep working on it. You are 'finding' problems that aren't there, and you didn't recognize the problem that was there. — wonderer1

I did. Just because I did not translate it to logical operators it does not mean your argument was not seen as fallacious from the start. Do I need to put that into syllogisms as well before you claim it is not the case? Try working on not appearing silly on an anonymous forum.

Me asking "How do you know that?" is not genuine desire to learn I must add, it is curiosity at how you arrived at a conclusion that goes against basic philosophy.

So you’re saying it’s metaphysically impossible for something to be destroyed? — Michael

It depends on what "destroying" means. In physical perspective, it is possible to destroy any physical entities. But non-physical entities cannot be destroyed in physical sense. And non-physical entities have no capability destroying anything in physical sense.

But if destroying means to degrade or make something useless, then some bad language can destroy someone's motivation for doing something, and in that sense, yeah it can destroy the non-physical state. But in that sense the existence are still intact, not having been destroyed. But this would be totally different perspective which is psychological and linguistic, nothing to do with Logic or Metaphysics.

It depends on what "destroying" means. — Corvus

To go from a state of existence to non-existence.

Are you saying that if some object X exists then it is metaphysically impossible that at some future time T object X no longer exists (unless some new object Y takes its place)?

Are you saying that if some object X exists then it is metaphysically impossible that at some future time T object X no longer exists (unless some new object Y takes its place)? — Michael

In this case we are talking about an object X(not a world), and it is possible for X to become non-existence through time T metaphysically. (X must not be Metaphysics itself)

In this case we are talking about an object X(not a world), and it is possible for X to become non-existence through time T. — Corvus

So for each object that exists in some world it is metaphysically possible that at some future time T that object no longer exists.

Then it is metaphysically possible that at some future time T no object exists in that world because everything that once existed no longer exists.

Therefore it is metaphysically possible for there to be a world in which nothing exists.

Therefore it’s metaphysically possible for there to be a world in which nothing exists. — Michael

A world where nothing exists (not even Metaphysics) is impossible metaphysically, because without Metaphysics, Metaphysics is impossible.

A world where nothing exists (not even Metaphysics) is impossible Metaphysically, because without Metaphysics, Metaphysics is impossible. — Corvus

Then it must be that for at least one object X it is metaphysically impossible that at some future time T that object no longer exists.

Some object X’s existence is a metaphysical necessity. What is this object?

Then it must be that for at least one object X it is metaphysically impossible that at some time T that object no longer exists. — Michael

Yes

Yes, iff X is not Metaphysics. — Corvus

You’re saying that the existence of metaphysics is a metaphysical necessity?

I don’t even know what this means. Are you arguing for the metaphysical necessity of Platonism?

You’re saying that the existence of metaphysics is a metaphysical necessity?

I don’t even know what this means. Are you arguing for Platonism? — Michael

hmmm was not thinking about Platonism as such.
But logically, how can do you Metaphysics, if Metaphysics didn't exist?
How could you even say or think of something metaphysically, if Metaphysics didn't exist?

But logically, how can do you Metaphysics, if Metaphysics didn't exist? — Corvus

What do you mean by “doing” metaphysics?

What do you mean by “doing” metaphysics? — Michael

The moment that you uttered the statement "X is impossible metaphysically", you were doing metaphysics. If metaphysics didn't exist at all, what does metaphysically mean?

The moment that you uttered the statement "X is impossible metaphysically" is doing metaphysics. — Corvus

So because intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is required to “do” metaphysics then the existence of intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is a metaphysical necessity?

I disagree.

It is metaphysically possible for intelligent life to not exist.

So because intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is required to “do” metaphysics then the existence of intelligent life with an appropriately expressive language is a metaphysical necessity?

I disagree. — Michael

The word "metaphysically" originated from metaphysics. Therefore the fact that you used the word necessitates its existence. It is a logical truth. :)

The word "metaphysically" originated from metaphysics, and therefore the fact that you used the word necessitates its existence. It is a logical truth. :) — Corvus

Firstly, you claimed before that non-existence is logically possible but metaphysically impossible. Now you seem to be saying that it’s logically impossible.

Secondly, that something is true isn’t that it is necessarily true. P ⊨ □P is invalid.

You might as well argue that because the phrase “metaphysical necessity” is an English phrase then the existence of the English language (or at least the phrase “metaphysical necessity”) is a metaphysical (and logical) necessity. This is very obviously wrong.

However, what would something metaphysically impossible but logically possible be? — Lionino

I don't think there is anything. They're basically the same thing.

Firstly, you claimed before that non-existence is logically possible but metaphysically impossible. Now you seem to be saying that it’s logically impossible. — Michael

Non-existence is possible in a possible world where nothing exists.
Non-existence is impossible metaphysically. Please bear in mind they are different worlds.

Secondly, that something is true isn’t that it is necessarily true. P ⊨ □P is invalid. — Michael

Something which is true in a world, can be not true in another world.

You might as well argue that because the word “metaphysical” is an English word then the existence of the English language is a metaphysical (and logical) necessity. This is very obviously wrong. — Michael

You must be a modal realist to accept the points. We are using English for the discussion, so surely the semantic will affect the logic of the arguments. This is called "Use-Condition" of arguments. Nothing to do with English is a metaphysical necessity.

It is metaphysically possible for intelligent life to not exist. — Michael

It is a metaphysical fact that intelligent life does exist. What you are calling a "metaphysical possibility" is in fact just a "possibility," and the exact metaphysical status of possibility is surely exactly what is in question.

Please justify this so far unsupported affirmation to someone who can't comprehend it. — javra

If the person can't comprehend what has been said clearly (i.e. supported by the context), then that person certainly can't understand its justification.

Sure, but in different respects. Hence, they are not logically contradictory.

Same as the concept "infinite person". Finally, we agree. :up:

and the exact metaphysical status of possibility — Pantagruel

That’s a slightly different question.