This is the source, here. This is what we're discussing. If there is physical possibility, what is it? What is the general theory that distinguishes it from other forms of possibility.

This is the source, here. This is what we're discussing. If there is physical possibility, what is it? What is the general theory that distinguishes it from other forms of possibility.

Shouldn't we be looking for the way in which the term is used in our language, as opposed to contriving some general theory which would attempt to justify an incorrect usage?

If the way in which it's commonly used draws no distinction between what can happen and what does happen, then that's the case. But that claim is under dispute. This dispute requires clarification of the notions involved. So far I dont see any case for the claim that physical impossibility is either not a matter of possibility or is subsumed by restricted logical possibility.

If the way in which it's commonly used draws no distinction between what can happen and what does happen, then that's the case. But that claim is under dispute. This dispute requires clarification of the notions involved. So far I dont see any case for the claim that physical impossibility is either not a matter of possibility or is subsumed by restricted logical possibility.

Interestingly, one definition of physical is thus:

"of the laws of nature", and it provides this example:

It's a physical impossibility for a man to fly like a bird.

Now, with the way you're using the term, this dictionary would be incorrect. Is that right?

If I recall correctly, this dispute began because Kennethamy and Night Ripper hold different views on laws of nature. I hold yet a different view, I see no reason to suppose that there are laws of nature. So, for me, that dictionary definition is meaningless.

Considering he is talking about violation of the laws of nature.

If I recall correctly, this dispute began because Kennethamy and Night Ripper hold different views on laws of nature. I hold yet a different view, I see no reason to suppose that there are laws of nature. So, for me, that dictionary definition is meaningless.

there is a dictionary definition of "unicorn" but although you don't suppose there are any unicorns, I don't imagine that "for you" the definition is meaningless.

Does that dictionary definition talk about necessitarian laws or are they regularist laws?

I hold yet a different view, I see no reason to suppose that there are laws of nature.

That's a different issue though and I agree with you on that as well. The fact that we've never observed anything traveling faster than the speed of light doesn't mean that will always be the case. However, that's merely skepticism of inductive reasoning. What I'm saying is that even if I ignore that skepticism and grant for the sake of argument that it's a true statement, "nothing ever has or ever will travel faster than the speed of light", that still doesn't imply that it's physically impossible, that it can't happen. It just means that it doesn't happen.

No idea.

Then you dont know what they mean. Is there any point to this little trip down the memory lane of cliches?

Why don't I know what they mean? They mean what they say.

In fact, that it doesn't happen because it can't?

That's a different issue though and I agree with you on that as well. The fact that we've never observed anything traveling faster than the speed of light doesn't mean that will always be the case. However, that's merely skepticism of inductive reasoning. What I'm saying is that even if I ignore that skepticism and grant for the sake of argument that it's a true statement, "nothing ever has or ever will travel faster than the speed of light", that still doesn't imply that it's physically impossible, that it can't happen. It just means that it doesn't happen.

And if we say that it can't happen, we are committing the modal fallacy. Is that right?

Right. Here's the article again: 'The' Modal Fallacy - Prof. Norman Swartz