Dragan Glas said:Just being pedantic - of course, there's a difference between being logically and physically impossible (not to mention technologically impossible).
My points are logically possible - even physically (scientifically) possible - just that they're, as we appear to agree, highly improbable.
However, having queried my definition of "possible", you then apply similarly loose definitions in your response to CommonEnlightenment:
Do you think they're loosely defined? OK, I'll define "improbable to the point of being impossible". If the chances of something happening are so remote that in the time since the Universe started it hasn't occurred (but then I can't know that for sure, so I'll have to say "the mathematical likelihood is tantamount to zero") and the same is true for the next 14 billion years, then we can regard the whole thing as "impossible".
I of course made one spelling mistake when writing, which confuses the issue. I said "Although it is theoretically possible, it is not even remotely possible" when it should say "probable", but then you probably (hehe) all inferred that.
BTW, I'm still waiting on the "right conditions".