[SIZE=+1]The temperature of crystallization is also related to pressure: At high pressure, warmer fluids can freeze. The reasoning is deeply rooted in impenetrable thermodynamics, but essentially, higher pressure tends to "push" molecules into the crystalline structure, while lower pressure allows the molecules to move more rapidly - to be a liquid or gas instead of a solid.
[/SIZE]

I already know about that article. In fact, I think it has been quoted on this forum before (I may have even quoted it before). I, and I think most others here, are aware of the modal fallacy. The problem is, the term physical impossibility means that which violates the laws of physics. I have provided a source. If we say that it is a physical impossibility that man can fly, we are saying it violates the laws of nature.

That is right.

My argument was:

1. If water freezes at 32 degree, then it is physically impossible for it to freeze at 70 degrees.
2. Water freezes at 32 degrees.

Therefore, 3. It is physically impossible for water to freeze at 70 degrees.

I am not sure, but are you questioning my first premise? But that first premise is true. I did not say that if water freezes at 32, then it is logically impossible that it should freeze at 70. Of course not. I said that it would physically impossible that it should freeze at 70. And that is true. For if the laws of nature are such that it freezes at 32, then for it to freeze at 70 would require a change in the laws of nature.

What about this do you disagree with?

If it refers to no concept at all, then there is no concept to instantiate, of course. Does "round circle" refer to a concept? It it does, then why should not its contrary, "square circle' not refer to a concept. I am afraid that you do not distinguish between the fact that a particular concept is not instantiated, like the concept of a Martian, and the different fact that it would be impossible for a concept to be instantiated, like the concept of a square-circle.

My argumentive style:

1. If water freezes at 32 degree, then it is physically impossible for it to freeze at 70 degrees.
2. Water freezes at 32 degrees.

Therefore, 3. It is physically impossible for water to freeze at 70 degrees.

Can you say what you believe is wrong with that argument. Logicians and scientists would , I am sure, say it is sound. Apparently you disagree. Any particular reason?

I think that everyone (particularly you) would do well to adopt that argumentive style.

My problem is with the first premise. It's unsupported.

How does the truth of "water freezes at 32 degrees" entail that it is physically impossible for it to freeze at 70 degrees?

It sounds like the modal fallacy is being committed.

Physical impossibility means that a law of physics is being violated. Water freezing at 70 degrees would entail that a law of physics is being violated. Therefore water freezing at 70 degrees is physically impossible.

If water freezes at 32 degree, then it is physically impossible for it to freeze at 70 degrees.

I think he's saying that the two terms, "square" and "circle" cancel each other out like two waves that are out of phase, leaving a net zero value for the concept, whereas the two terms, "round" and "circle" are not contradictory and so do no cancel each other out; rather, the two halves combine to form a whole, a consistent term that can be instantiated.

Why is he saying "if x then y" if there's no connection between x and y? It seems like he's committing the modal fallacy, doesn't it?

Otherwise, what do you think cannot be instantiated?

Since it is true water freezes at 32, it is a physical impossibility that it freezes at 70.

There is no concept to be instantiated.

I've also asked before, how is the "physical impossibility that it freezes at 70" entailed by "it is true water freezes at 32"?

Of course there is. You know the concept you're not able to instantiate, that being a square circle.

I think I may see your misunderstanding. It is necessary that a law of physics be violated, in order for a physical impossibility to occur. This is because that is what physical impossibility means, by definition. It is a law of physics that water freezes at 32, and therefore, if water froze at 70, a law of physics would be violated. And, necessarily, by definition, it would be a physical impossibility. This is because a law of physics being violated is what physical impossibility means. But this is different than saying that it is necessary that water freezes at 32. See the difference?

If water freezes at 32 degree, then it is physically impossible for it to freeze at 70 degrees.

What about the concept of a married bachelor? I'm supposed to know what the concept of a married bachelor is?

See my emphasis? When people say "if x then y" they usually mean that y is somehow entailed by/brought about by/made necessary by, x. I'd like to know how that's happening in the case of what kennethamy said, if not by committing the modal fallacy.

I think I may see your misunderstanding. It is necessary that a law of physics be violated, in order for a physical impossibility to occur. This is because that is what physical impossibility means, by definition. It is a law of physics that water freezes at 32, and therefore, if water froze at 70, a law of physics would be violated. And, necessarily, by definition, it would be a physical impossibility. This is because a law of physics being violated is what physical impossibility means. But this is different than saying that it is necessary that water freezes at 32. See the difference?

If there was no concept of a square circle, what do you think those ancient geometers were trying to do then? It appears they were trying to square a circle.

If water freezes at 32 and is a law of physics, then a law of physics would be violated if water froze at 70.

You think there are rules that the universe must obey but where do these rules come from? God? Nowhere?

What about "married bachelor" or any other two concepts that exclude each other? Your objection seems to rest on an ambiguity not present in all cases.

Can you translate the entire thing? That doesn't seem like it makes sense in the context of the entire argument.

What about "married bachelor" or any other two concepts that exclude each other? Your objection seems to rest on an ambiguity not present in all cases.



Can you translate the entire thing? That doesn't seem like it makes sense in the context of the entire argument.

If it is a law of nature that water does not freeze at a temperature greater then 32 degrees, then for water to freeze at 70 would be a violation of a law of nature. No problem.

How does that prove anything is a law of nature?

How does that prove anything is a law of nature?