Necessary Thing

[robvalue]

[Edited a bunch of times]

Okay.

Well, we can either use the scientific method to investigate observable (testable) reality, or we can speculate further than that. If we do the first, we create models that make predictions, and we test those predictions. We eventually improve the models until they are as close to reality as possible.

If we are speculating about qualities of reality we can't observe, or indeed outside of our own reality, we can't know what is possible and what is impossible. So your question was asking, I thought anyway, whether it's a logical possibility that something could be non contingent. The difference between a logical possibility and an actual possibility, I would assume, is that the former just has to be consistent, whereas the second needs to be demonstrable. If you mean something else by the phrase, then please let me know.

So we can speculate by making up details about the things we don't know, and as long as these details are internally consistent, and don't contradict how they would apply to our reality, then it's "logically possible". We can't rule it out, you could say. It's completely impossible to ever demonstrate which set of details is actually true or possible, because we can't observe or test the qualities/things they apply to.

So if you instead insist we restrict ourselves to observable reality, then you're insisting we already know everything there is to know. And clearly, we almost certainly don't. Again, there's know way to know that, even if we did know everything. We'd be saying observable reality is all of reality.

So what I'm saying, is you can't scientifically extend models or principles that work in observable reality to unobservable parts, because they simply may not work that way. How do they work? We have no idea, because we can't observe them. So "anything goes", as far as I can see, as something that is logically possible. It doesn't mean it's true, or actually possible, just theoretically logically possible if things were a certain way. How else do you propose we determine what is and isn't possible? We could further speculate about what are more likely possibilities, by examining the number of additional assumptions that need to be made as per Occams Razor.