I'm saying that even with this true statement, it still doesn't imply that going faster than the speed of light is physically impossible.

First of all, you're talking about the laws of science again. Secondly, I've already explained that this has nothing to do with fallibility or skepticism. Regardless of what we can or cannot know, the following statement is either true or false, "nothing ever has or ever will travel faster than the speed of light". I'm already granting for the sake of argument that this statement is true and no mistake has been made. Discussion of fallibility is irrelevant. I'm saying that even with this true statement, it still doesn't imply that going faster than the speed of light is physically impossible.

Yes, it does. According to what the term physically impossible means. I've spelled it out for you many, many times. A physical impossibility is that which is contrary to known physical laws.

The proposition that is is physically impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light is a consequence of the inconsistency between the theory of relativity and the proposition that something travels faster than the speed of light.

No, I didn't say that. We can know that some things do not exist, such as the Loch Ness monster. Why do you think I said we can't?

I am merely making the point that we are fallible. But our fallibility does not mean we can't know that things don't exist.

But has that to do with what I said?

"nothing ever has or ever will travel faster than the speed of light"

...entails that it's physically impossible?

I think this is the thing: the knowledge that the Loch Ness monster doesn't exist is intuitional knowledge.

Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premisses about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:

If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.

For instance, one might reason:
If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.

Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:

If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.

To go too far in demystification would be a physics student who has no confidence that what has been called a law will manifest itself in today's laboratory exercise. That's a student who isn't going to graduate unless he allows himself to become a tad more intuitional.

If the law were to be violated, it would mean that something physically impossible occured.

Alright I see the problem now, you're using a completely absurd definition of physically impossible. Here's my sane definition of physically impossible, "a state of affairs that can't happen".

You should have already seen the problem pages ago. It is not an absurd definition, it is the definition. I've even provided a source. You completely ignored the definition and my posts explaining what physical impossibility means, and continued on your rampage thinking it was a "state of affairs that can't happen". With your underlined "can't" presumably meaning that we're claiming absolute certainty. But we never were. When we say can't, we mean according to our knowledge of the laws of physics! You are meaning something absolute when you write "can't".

A physical impossibility is a violation of a law of physics. Laws of physics are scientific generalizations based on empirical and mathematical evidence. No one is saying that laws of physics are absolutely correct, that is, we cannot be wrong about them. But there is no reason to think they aren't correct, which is why they are laws! But according to the laws, we would say anything in violation can't happen!

No, I'm sorry. Until you can accept that "physically impossible" means "a state of affairs that can't happen" we're not going anywhere.

So, until I incorrectly use the term to suit your liking, we aren't going anywhere? Alright, buddy. But if you want to use the term correctly, you can listen to what I've said. Or, you know, try google to find another source (one of which I already provided).

I'm not going to sit here and argue over common knowledge. If something is physically impossible then it's a state of affairs that can't happen. It definitely isn't a state of affairs that can happen.

There's nothing controversial about my definition so for you to fight against it seems rather silly and desperate. Do you really think physically impossible means it can happen?

Y But there is no reason to think they aren't correct, which is why they are laws! And according to the laws, we would say anything in violation can't happen!

No, I wasn't talking about auto-epistemic conclusions. I was talking about intuition. I was going to try to explain how it is that knowledge of natural law is intuitional knowledge, but intuition tells me that there's no point in that. Hey! It's a sunny day where I am.

When you use the term, you don't mean only according to the laws of physics, you mean it absolutely cannot happen period

Yes, stupid me for thinking that "physically impossible" means "absolutely cannot happen". All this time "physically impossible" really meant that it can happen!

But it doesn't mean it can't in the same way we would say something which is logically impossible, can't.

You're right but unfortunately I've never held that position. That's because logic deals with conceivability, not existence. However, before you can say whether or not some "thing" exists, you have to be able to conceive of it. I can conceive of a unicorn and that allows me to say "unicorns don't exist". I can't conceive of a married bachelor.

However, back to my point. If something is physically impossible, that means it physically can't happen. If something is physically possible, that means it physically can happen. I really hope you're still with me on this because this seems awfully uncontroversial.

Now, how does the true statement...

"nothing ever has or ever will travel faster than the speed of light"

...entail that it's physically impossible?

It doesn't, unless you've committed the modal fallacy.

You're also welcome to explain how a theory shows something can't happen as well but I assure you that theory will have the same flaw.

I now understand. The term physically impossible is meaningless to you, because no matter how much empirical evidence we present, you will never accept that something cannot happen. No matter what example we use, you will not accept that that thing is physically impossible, stating that to say it is physically impossible is to commit the modal fallacy.

Isn't that right?

I don't think it's meaningless but it is untestable. We have two possible interpretations:

1. "nothing ever has or ever will travel faster than the speed of light"

2. "nothing can travel faster than the speed of light"

The problem is that (2) looks exactly like (1) in all possible experiments. There's no experiment you can perform that can falsify one of these two statements but not the other.

Personally, asserting the existence of untestable things, such as mysterious laws that control what can and cannot happen, makes me uneasy.

No one can test "ever will".

Your problem is that you think that because we could be wrong, we should not be certain.