Yes, physically impossible means incompatible with the laws of nature.

2. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

Great, that's a start. Now let's establish what makes true statements about the world, true.

1. You will wear a shirt tomorrow.

What makes (1) true is if, in fact, you do wear a shirt tomorrow. In other words, the truth of (1) depends on what actually is the case. Agreed?

Alright, so let's settle on something we both agree is a law of nature, which is, after all, just another true statement about the world but one that is universally true in all times and places.

2. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

Just like (1) the truth of (2) depends on what is the case. If a mass were ever to accelerate faster than the speed of light then (2) would be false because it wasn't the case.

So, the fact that (2) is true doesn't mean that no mass can ever accelerate faster than the speed of light. A mass could do that but then (2) would be false. The fact that (2) is true only reflects the facts of reality, it doesn't control it.

I think it is logically possible that cats sprout wings, but I certainly don't think it is physically possible. Again, this does not recognize the difference between logical and physical possibility. Hume notoriously wrong that "anything can cause anything". And that is, of course is true if "can" means "logically possible". But it is false if "can" means physically possible. And causation is about physical possibility, not about logical possibility.

Are you sure anyone here disagrees with you?

I think we do disagree with him. You, kennethamy and I are saying there are contingent laws of nature; Night Ripper is saying there are no laws of nature.

(2) is physically impossible, but not logically impossible.

The problem is that kennethamy thinks it implies it can't happen where as I think it implies it won't happen. He thinks the laws of nature are prescriptions of what can or cannot happen. I think they are descriptions of what does or does not happen. If my view is accepted then the problem of being under the control of the laws of nature is solved. The laws of nature are simply true statements. True statements such as "you will wear a shirt tomorrow" don't control you and thereby lock you into wearing a shirt. They are true statements only because you will in fact wear a shirt tomorrow.

Try to put this argument back in the context of the first post in this thread.

I think we do disagree with him. You, kennethamy and I are saying there are contingent laws of nature; Night Ripper is saying there are no laws of nature.

A law of nature is a universally true statement:

1. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.
2. No two electrons ever occupy the same quantum state.
3. All electrons are identical.

Etc, etc, etc..

Every educated person knows these things. I'm not here to question common knowledge. I'm questioning the quasi-theological assumption that these regularities are somehow governed by mysterious laws of nature rather than the laws of nature taking their truth from these amazing but contingent (and if you like, random) regularities.

You're the one that keeps bringing up logical possibility. I'm claiming (2) is not physically impossible.

If physically impossible means incompatible with the laws of nature then nothing is physically impossible because the laws of nature are simply true descriptions of the universe. How could what happens be incompatible with a true description of what happens? It seems like you think the description comes first and then the universe follows. Please answer and remember, we are addressing physical impossibility only.

I don't know what is mysterious or theological about regularities in our world.

I'm questioning the quasi-theological assumption that these regularities are somehow governed by mysterious laws of nature.

That you think that your view will save free will from determinism is not much of an argument for your view. I don't think that the laws of nature are prescriptions in the way man-made laws are prescriptions. Natural laws are not commands. But they are not simply descriptions either.

That's not what I wrote.





That is nonsense. They are either descriptions or prescriptions. There is no third option. Things either have to be the way they are (prescription) or they are just that way (description).

Some regularities are also laws of nature. They are not governed by laws of nature. And no one claims that the laws of nature have to be the way they are. They are contingent.

I wouldn't say regularities are governed by the laws of nature (I'm not even sure what that would mean, actually). But I would say that the laws of nature describe, and explain, these regularities; the laws of nature are true generalizations about the physical world.

What about this do you disagree with?

The laws of nature are contingent truths. If nothing ever accelerates faster than the speed of light, it's a law of nature. The laws of nature don't prevent it or make it so that it can't happen.

So then do you agree that if a man gets pregnant then the laws of nature (being true descriptions) would simply have to change (or rather our mistaken view of them would have to change) to reflect that fact rather than the laws of nature prevent such a think from ever happening?

No, but given that the laws of nature are true, it means that it won't happen.

Right but that's like saying that because it's true that I never wear yellow shirts that I won't wear a yellow shirt tomorrow. I'm not really being prevented from wearing a yellow shirt, am I?

The regularity (for the sake of argument) that you never wear yellow shirts explains why you won't wear a yellow shirt tomorrow. Nothing to do with prevention.

Right but the question is, which reflects which? Does the statement become true based on what color shirts I wear or does what color shirt I wear depend on the truth of the statement?

1. Night Ripper never wears yellow shirts.

I think you will agree that the truth of (1) reflects what color shirts I wear. If I choose, tomorrow I could wear a yellow shirt for the first time and make (1) false or I could never wear a yellow shirt and make (1) true. The truth or falsity is based on whatever I do.

2. No mass ever accelerates faster than the speed of light.

Likewise, the truth or falsity of (2) reflects how mass actually behaves. If some mass were to accelerate faster than the speed of light then (2) would be false. However, since (2) is true, mass never does that. It doesn't mean that it can't do that, since it could and make (2) false. Remember (2) is true or false based on how mass behaves. It doesn't control or govern the behaviour of mass.

The regularity (for the sake of argument) that you never wear yellow shirts, explains why you won't wear a yellow shirt tomorrow. Nothing to do with prevention.