I apologize to everyone.

[Montmorency]

Let me put this another way.

Would you say that everything that occurs within the universe is possible within the universe?

Yes, you would. This is by definition.

And would you agree that what is impossible to occur in the universe, does not occur in the universe?

I think you would. This is merely the other side of the definition.

So, with the above in mind, wouldn't it be rather silly to assert that possibility is a gradient and that it is possible to approach impossibility?

Allowing that one can not attain impossibility and witness or perform an impossible thing does not get you out of it. You must see that one possible thing is no more or less possible than another.

Divorce this thought from any notion of stochasticity, which is something entirely distinct.

All things are merely either possible, or impossible.

In the eyes of society, a raving madman who sees only what he wants to see is not as desirable as a rational and considerate person who views things from many angles before acting. This is, like, common sense.

What you describe is not a difference in degree of bias, but a different flavor of bias. The "madman" is only mad because his frame of reference irreconcilably contradicts "society's"; both are equally biased.

What's your angle?

I'm pushing my epistemology. In terms of my epistemology, what you're saying is no more than self-indulgent gibberish.

Every last aspect of civilization that could be considered good or convenient is against nature in some fashion.

Of course, everything that is possible is natural. Therefore, everything that exists is natural. More of my philosophy.