But it's a curious thought to ponder: does something not exist because its existence would preclude its existence - let's call that the 'existential impossibility' - or because that very fact is a logical impossibility? In both cases it would not exist. So if it doesn't exist, then for which reason of the two?
It's rather like the set of all sets that aren't members of themselves... which sounds logically reasonable but its existence creates an insurmountable paradox: does it contain itself? If it does, then it shouldn't, and if it doesn't then it should!
™ Version 4.2