So far as I can tell you have not replied to the argumennt at all. For you have neither commented on the premises, nor on the validity of the argument. Of course, your interest in the argument has nothing to do with whether it is an argument which illustrates how a an event can be shown to be philosophically impossible. If you let me know what sort of argument interests you, I will try to come up with that kind of argument. But any argument with is an example of proving that a particular event is physically impossible would meet the requirement. The DN model of explanation implies that an event which cannot be deduced from the relevant laws of nature, together with the current initial conditions is physically impossible. That should be obvious.

I hope this helps.

A general theory of physical possibility.No it wouldn't, it would only work if you were offering a counter example.The thesis concerns laws of science, not laws of nature, presumably even necessitarian laws ontologists dont hold that laws of science are ontologically real entities with physically prescriptive power. And the thesis concerns the logic of explanations, so it is concerned with what is logically entailed by laws of science, ie the observation to be explained. In short, the thesis demands that an explanation be a logical argument with the inverted form of a prediction. There is no implication to the effect that it's impossible for the prediction to fail, and thus for the explanation to be falsified.

The general theory of physical impossibility is an implication of the DN model. It is physically impossible for an event to occur unless it can be deduced on the lines of the DN model.

As far as I know, the DN model makes no distinction between laws of science, and laws of nature. It, of course, simply assumes that the former are representations of the latter.

The general theory of physical impossibility is an implication of the DN model. It is physically impossible for an event to occur unless it can be deduced on the lines of the DN model.

It was physically impossible in 1780 for Andorra to win a war with Prussia and Russia in alliance.

If that's the case, then any physical fact for which there is no scientific explanation would be impossible, in other words, there is no fact for which science can not, in principle, provide an explanation. But there are irreducibly empirical facts, facts for which no explanation is, even in principle, possible, for example, the value of the universal gravitational constant. Or do facts have exemption?

What causal link would you like?

The general theory of physical impossibility is an implication of the DN model. It is physically impossible for an event to occur unless it can be deduced on the lines of the DN model.

one thing is the fact whatever it might be, and quite another is your question regarding that fact

What do you mean?

...that there is a difference between an event and the description and problematization of that event...You ask X, of Y...both fail to refer completely...

But I'm specifically talking about events and facts in relation to the deductive-nomological theory of explanation.

...they may or may not fit depending on interpretation on both, what is the model exactly asking and what does the problem description refers to...both are circunscript to the limits of language, and none circumscribes the event itself...

If you're saying that the deductive-nomological theory of explanation is false, then I guess you won't accept it as the basis of a general theory of physical possibility.

...the description of a fact has limits in terms of what it truly addresses in a question...so, one thing is the fact whatever it might be, and quite another is your question regarding that fact...

---------- Post added 03-07-2010 at 01:05 AM ----------



...one that clearly proves the physical impossibility of A winning a war at B...

I thought I gave such a proof. Another would be that if would be phyically impossible for ice to form at a termperature of 70 degrees since that temperature could not affect the molecules of the water so as for the water to freeze. Isn't that a proof that freezing at 70 degrees is impossible? What is missing (except detail) from that proof?

Another would be that if would be phyically impossible for ice to form at a termperature of 70 degrees since that temperature could not affect the molecules of the water so as for the water to freeze. Isn't that a proof that freezing at 70 degrees is impossible? What is missing (except detail) from that proof?

What's missing is proof of the claim in bold. Your proof that it's physically impossible for water to freeze at 70 degrees rests on the unsupported claim of yet another physical impossibility.

What's missing is proof of the claim in bold. Your proof that it's physically impossible for water to freeze at 70 degrees rests on the unsupported claim of yet another physical impossibility.

I thought we do have proof that water doesn't freeze at 70 degrees?

Doesn't or can't? Let's not make the mistake of saying, "I've never seen x therefore x is physically impossible." Just because you've never seen water freeze at 70 degrees doesn't mean it's physically impossible.