The Limits Of The Possible

I am currently reading not Poul Anderson but other authors who prompt reflection on Anderson's works. This is always possible because Anderson's sf and fantasy output was so voluminous and comprehensive. Other writers' multiverses initiated reassessment of A Midsummer Tempest.

If a multiverse contains everything possible, then what are its limits? I think that the possible does have logical limits - the only question is what they are - which is why the title of this post does not end with a question mark.

(i) A group of beings with superhuman powers answering the description of "gods" is possible. They can be rationalized in sf or unrationalized in fantasy.
(ii) That a single powerful being created a particular universe is possible. Thus, "God" instead of "gods."
(iii) That that being beginninglessly preexisted everything else without any explanation or origin is not possible, I don't think.

I mentioned that Anderson's fantasies do not include any "God is dead" scenario - although this might follow from the King of Ys Tetralogy (with Karen Anderson). A new God replaces the old gods at the beginning of the Piscean Age so what will happen at the end of that Age?

I grew up believing that God was both changeless and necessarily existent, therefore, for two reasons, unable to cease existing. I now think that no consciousness can be changeless and that no existence is necessary - although maybe being-nothing alternation and actualization of possibility are somehow necessary?

Self is recognized as such only by contrast with other. Other is seen as independent of self only if it is sometimes recognized as having been perceived previously, with the assumption that both subject and object have continued to exist independently of each other since the earlier perception. Otherwise, there is no difference between objective other and subjective imagining. Recognition is memory, necessarily involving the perception of time, minimally the distinction between "now" and "before." Therefore a timeless, changeless self-consciousness is impossible.

Nothing can begin and end simultaneously. Either it begins, endures, however briefly, and ends or it does not begin. Instantaneous consciousness would be unconsciousness. Therefore, again, timeless consciousness is impossible. But might something be trans-temporal instead of atemporal? The trans-temporal, if this concept can have any meaning, would have to incorporate and transcend change, not exclude it.