That it must be that what is actual is possible is a theorem in modal logic. So it can be proved. But, isn't it intuitively obvious? It is not because I believe it that I believe it is true. It is because I believe it is true, that I believe it.

How is this meant to demonstrate the physical impossibility that you've claimed re. Luxembourg and China?

Only in philosophy would anyone think that whether it is a real possibility that Luxembourg could win a war against China is something that is disputable. It is important to take note of that. It is as if we are on a different planet.

This is called hand waving. Are you seriously maintaining that it is physically impossible for Luxembourg to win a war with China? If so, other than your belief and incredulity, do you have an argument?

What is existence? Is it physical reality alone?
Samm

It isn't. What what shows that is our knowledge of the comparable military forces of the two countries, and other assumptions about the ability of a country with no military force to win a war against one with enormous forces. (Only in philosophy would anyone think that whether it is a real possibility that Luxembourg could win a war against China is something that is disputable. It is important to take note of that. It is as if we are on a different planet).

(Only in philosophy would anyone think that whether it is a real possibility that Luxembourg could win a war against China is something that is disputable. It is important to take note of that. It is as if we are on a different planet).

Sorry to interject, but I quite literally broke out laughing. You're right.

The only thing I can think of is that they have a different understanding of "physical impossibility". Perhaps, for instance, they think you're saying that it is violating a law of nature?

Sorry to interject, but I quite literally broke out laughing. You're right.

The only thing I can think of is that they have a different understanding of "physical impossibility". Perhaps, for instance, they think you're saying that it is violating a law of nature?

Sorry to interject, but I quite literally broke out laughing. You're right.

The only thing I can think of is that they have a different understanding of "physical impossibility". Perhaps, for instance, they think you're saying that it is violating a law of nature?

All of them know that it would be impossible for L to win against C. They just are in the grip of a theory. And in the grip of empty skepticism.

Go Zen kenneth, you are to loud, to big...just like China...

And tell the truth, too. And give reasons too. That's unforgivable. And make you think. And thinking is so difficult. Again, unforgivable.

INVISIBILITY should be enough answer to you... but I could give you 10 more reasons...

So hard to think. And so pointless when you can write nonsense.

Well it is: or rather violating a complicated series of natural laws.

I don't know if it is violating any natural laws, but it is impossible for L to beat C if L has no army. Their position, I think, is to think up fictitious scenarios in order for L to win. Even one that is aptly dubbed "INVISIBILITY". Which I guess means that, predator-style, a Luxembourgian would go invisible and then slay all the Chinamen.

I don't know if it is violating any natural laws, but it is impossible for L to beat C if L has no army. Their position, I think, is to think up fictitious scenarios in order for L to win. Even one that is aptly dubbed "INVISIBILITY". Which I guess means that, predator-style, a Luxembourgian would go invisible and then slay all the Chinamen.

Ultimately all physical truth is the product of the laws of nature and the initial conditions. Of course, the process is impossibly long and complex, and is a practical impossiblity to explain.