I'm glad you finally see my point I've been trying to make since post #495.



Therefore, it doesn't make sense to think anything is physically impossible. I win.

You mean one can't, with 100% certainty, state that an event is physically impossible. Simple reason why: we don't have full confidence in our understanding.

You can still think in terms of physical impossibility as long as you remember that, right? Or are you saying that physical impossibility is a poor use of words? To say impossible means to make a prediction. Unless you have a crystal ball with which to see the future, predictions involve uncertainty. The question comes: is certainty like being pregnant? Is there such a thing as slightly uncertain?

To say that a square circle can't exist is not to make the prediction that I will never observe a square circle. It is to say that no one can observe a square circle since such a thing is logically impossible. And to say that an event is physically impossible is to say that you will not observe such an event since such an event is incompatible with a physical law. So, as long as we know that the physical law is true, and that the event is incompatible with that physical law, we know that event cannot occur. Nothing to do with certainty at all. Not unless you confuse knowledge with certainty, of course.

Psychological certainty comes in degrees, of course. But philosophical certainty (the impossibility of error) does not. So you can be a little bit psychologically uncertain, but not a little bit philosophically uncertain.

Why? What he is saying is that such an event would, if it were to occur, would be incompatible with a natural law, and therefore it would be physically impossible. So, such an event could not occur.

And you're right, it wouldn't make sense to think that an event would be incompatible with natural law, since natural law is supposed to be true...

Nothing is prevented...

No, he's not saying that at all. All you have to do is read English.



If an event occurs, it's the natural law that we were wrong about. The laws don't prevent anything from occurring. The laws are true statements about whatever occurs.

What I said is correct, and shows that you are wrong when you say that "physical impossibility" does not mean anything.

What does "cause or pressure" mean? Especially, 'pressure" if not, "compel"? It does no good, it seems to me, just to change the word, but mean the same thing. I don't know what is meant by "the concept of agency", so I cannot answer.

You said that natural laws don't compel us to do anything. The definition of compel is:

1 : to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly <hunger compelled him to eat>
2 : to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>

With that said, are you still saying that natural laws, such as evolutionary psychology and environmental factors, don't cause us to do things.

Agency (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did you switch from "compel" to "cause" all of a sudden? Of course, the laws of nature describe causes. But many causes do not compel. "Cause" and "compel" do not mean the same thing.

I claimed that no event is physically impossible because no event can be incompatible with the laws of nature. If some event occurs then we were simply mistaken about the laws of nature. Nothing is ever prevented.

Maybe it depends on the context in which the word is used because the dictionary definition of compel includes to cause to do by overwhelming pressure. If you agree that natural regulations do cause agents to act in certain ways then what are we disagreeing on?

No event can be incompatible with the laws of nature.

The above statement can be taken to mean either of the following:

1. It is logically impossible for an event to violate the laws of nature, because a true natural law that is violated is a contradiction.

2. It is physically impossible for an event to violate the laws of nature, because the universe has a particular (contingent) structure which (a) enables general laws to be formulated and (b) precludes some events.

It seems to me that everyone agrees with the statement in bold, but some (e.g. Night Ripper) interpret it as (1), while others (e.g. Zetherin and kennethamy) interpret it as (2). The first interpretation allows the universe to be random, whereas the second does not.

Note that in (2) it is the structure of the universe, not the laws themselves, that precludes some events. The laws are only descriptive.

Please don't argue for me. That's not even close to my position. Also, I've quoted where Zetherin says "nothing is prevented" so you are misrepresenting him as well. He doesn't appear to think that any events are precluded.

If an event occurs, it's the natural law that we were wrong about. The laws don't prevent anything from occurring. The laws are true statements about whatever occurs.

2. It is physically impossible for an event to violate the laws of nature, because the universe has a particular (contingent) structure which (a) enables general laws to be formulated and (b) precludes some events.

Note that in (2) it is the structure of the universe, not the laws themselves, that precludes some events. The laws are only descriptive.

He appears to think that events are precluded if they are incompatible with a law of nature. And, of course, they are. You say so too. It is logically impossible both for a particular law of nature to be true, and for an event which is incompatible with it to occur. And that means (implies) that it is physically impossible for such an event to occur.

Please don't argue for me. That's not even close to my position. Also, I've quoted where Zetherin says "nothing is prevented" so you are misrepresenting him as well. He doesn't appear to think that any events are precluded.

Yes, I agree. That is all you wanted to show? Well, then I guess you do win. I just wish I would have known that from the start so that I didn't lose... so much time.

1. Night Ripper never wears yellow shirts.
2. No mass ever accelerates faster then the speed of light.

So then do you understand that if both (1) and (2) are true then they are true because they reflect the facts? Neither prevent anything from occurring. The laws of nature are no more a threat to free will than (1) is a threat to my ability to wear yellow shirts.

By the way. I also think there is no conflict between determinism and free will.

1. Night Ripper never wears yellow shirts.
2. No mass ever accelerates faster then the speed of light.

So then do you understand that if both (1) and (2) are true then they are true because they reflect the facts? Neither prevent anything from occurring. The laws of nature are no more a threat to free will than (1) is a threat to my ability to wear yellow shirts.

One of these days, though, you really have to explain why you think that natural law is a "threat to free will".

Even kennethamy, on the first page, states

Who do you think was claiming that laws of nature were a threat to free will?

Causal (or nomological) determinism is the thesis that future events are necessitated by past and present events combined with the laws of nature.