Yes, and that logical impossibility implies a physical impossibility, namely that it is physically impossible for males to become pregnant, since for males to become pregnant is logically incompatible with their anatomy which does not permit them to become pregnant. If p and q are logically impossible, then p and q are physically impossible. What is logically impossible cannot be physically possible.

What evidence? That you observe it never happens? You're making the same mistake again. You think that since X never happens therefore X is physically impossible. At least, for some things anyways. You're not very consistent.

In other words, the proposition that males can become pregnant, and the proposition that males lack the physical equipment to become pregnant are logically incompatible.

Logical incompatibility is obviously a sufficient condition of physical impossibility. But is it a necessary condition?

Of course not and kennethamy knows this but he dishonestly retreats to arguments of logical impossibility instead of physical impossibility.

So a four-sided triangle is physically impossible?

It seems that for you "physically impossible" is simply another way of saying "logically impossible". I will remember to translate your statements in the future.

I think you should give him more leeway and stop being too aggressive in discussions in general. This aggression does not help anything. Kennethamy is a very knowledgeable person on the topic of philosophy though a bit odd to communicate with (he blames the computer and his age).

Besides that, where did you learn about regularity theory? Did you read online articles like the ones at SEP and IEP, or did you read Swartz's book or something else?

I think you should give him more leeway and stop being too aggressive in discussions in general. This aggression does not help anything. Kennethamy is a very knowledgeable person on the topic of philosophy though a bit odd to communicate with (he blames the computer and his age).

Besides that, where did you learn about regularity theory? Did you read online articles like the ones at SEP and IEP, or did you read Swartz's book or something else?

If X is logically impossible, then it is physically impossible. But it is false that if X is physically impossible, then it is logically impossible. There is only a one-way implication, not a two-way implication.

Logical incompatibility is obviously a sufficient condition of physical impossibility. But is it a necessary condition?

Show me something physically impossible that isn't also logically impossible.

I did. A human being jumping 100 feet into the air is physically impossible, but since it does not entail a contradiction, it is logically possible (or not logically impossible).

A human being will never jump 100 feet in the air but that doesn't mean a human being can't jump 100 feet in the air. Therefore it's not physically impossible.

A human being will never jump 100 feet in the air but that doesn't mean a human being can't jump 100 feet in the air. Therefore it's not physically impossible.

it's more than just they will never, it's that they can never. Humans heck the strongest animals lack the strength necessary to do such a thing.

Humans cannot breathe underwater. It's not that they won't its that they can't. They lack the necessary lung structure to do so.

physical impossibilities occur when one attempts to do something beyond ones own nature. vegetable oil cannot break out into song and dance. Not because it just won't but because it can't. It is not within the nature of what we call vegetable oil to do so.


everything has a nature which that thing is limited by. Nothing can do something outside or beyond its own nature. To do so would be both physically and logically impossible.

No. What would make you think it was? (I am supposing you meant by "logical incompatibility", "logical impossibility". Why did you suddenly change terms? It is confusing).

With regard to post #149:


I chose my wording carefully. I was responding to your post #136, in which you argued that a male could not become pregnant because this would involve two propositions that were logically incompatible. In other words, you used a logical impossibility to prove a physical impossibility.

I fully agree with you that some things physically cannot happen (not just "will not" happen). But, since you mentioned a logical incompatibility in the male pregnancy example, I wondered whether you meant to imply that all physical impossibilities involved some kind of contradiction. Take the example of a person jumping 100 feet into the air: does that likewise imply two contradictory propositions?

Yes, if something is logically impossible, then it is also physically impossible. How could what is contradictory be physically possible? It can't. Jumping 100 feet into the air does not imply a contradiction. But it is a contradiction for something to be physically possible that is incompatible with a law of nature. For that is what it means for something to be physically impossible. It means that it is incompatible with a law of nature. Thus, it is physically impossible for a human to jump 100 feet because for him to do such a thing would be incompatible with the laws of physiology. It is not contradictory for a human to jump 100 feet. But is a contradiction for a human to jump 100 feet, and for the laws of physiology to be as they are. (It is not contradictory for a figure to be a square, but it is contradictory for a figure to be both a square and a circle).

Nothing can do something outside or beyond its own nature. To do so would be both physically and logically impossible.

The problem is, we decide what the nature of a thing is by observing what it does. In this case, we have observed that nothing without gills ever breaths underwater. The problem is, you are again appealing only to what doesn't happen, not what can't happen. Even though it's true that:

1. Nothing without gills ever breaths underwater.

(1) doesn't imply that it can't happen. Only that it doesn't happen. Just because something never happens doesn't mean it can't happen. Yet that's the exact same fallacy that's being used over and over again.