If any thing is possible, is it possible that nothing is possible?

Well, if we write this out in symbolic logic, we get: 1. A (any thing is possible) . : IF A THEN NOT A Now, it's clear that this argument is invalid (more on that below), as we only have to check one possible value, that of A.In logic, IF P THEN Q is False only when P is True and Q is False.

Thus, the conclusion will have a truth value of True when A is False and a value of False when A is true. Now, for an argument to be valid, the sufficient and necessary condition is that there can be no instance such that the premises of the argument evaluate as True and the conclusion evaluates as False. Clearly, if A is True, then we have all True premises but a False conclusion.

Therefore, the argument is invalid. In other words, it's a silly argument that looks alright at first glance because of ambiguities in the language used. Note, though, that the idea outlined above does not prove your statement false, only that the given premise is not enough to lead to the conclusion.

" Yes... but only for very large values of nothing.

Well, if anything includes nothing, then yes. If you have the ability to do anything, then you also posses the ability to do nothing, but who would want to do that?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.