1. If you mean by "possible" that we do not know (and that is what you mean) that the person will not die without food, that is, of course, false.

2. If you mean by "possible" that it is logically impossible that the person can live without food, that is false. It is logically possible for a person to live without food, since that a person lives without food does not imply a contradiction

3. But if you mean by "possible" that it is not physically possible for a person to live without food, you are, of course, correct.

So, it depends.

well I challenge you to live by your assertions

we must ask ourselves just how big of a skeptic do I want to be?

Contingent means "possible but not certain to occur".



No, that is logical necessity. Try again.

What is logically necessary is, "if all metals expand when heated, and copper is a metal, then copper expands when heated". What is physically necessary is that copper expands when it is heated. The latter is physically necessary because it is the consequent of the logically necessary conditional. You really have to follow the argument. It is a little complicated.

I already do. I acknowledge that it's not necessary that I will die without food but I also acknowledge that contingently I will die without food. There's no contradiction.

I think this comes from a general misunderstanding of what skepticism entails. All that is required is to keep an open mind. I still shop at grocery stores and stop at red lights, even though I may live without food or pass through the other cars as if they were holograms. The reason why I don't act on every bare possibility is called pragmatism.

I already do. I acknowledge that it's not necessary that I will die without food but I also acknowledge that contingently I will die without food. There's no contradiction.

I swear your usage of the word "contingently" (as you are intending it) is incorrect in that sentence.
please insert another word and use the same sentence please. Here's how I would write it with a different word for example:

I acknowledge that it's not necessary that I will die without food but I also acknowledge that "based upon the physical laws of nature being what they are" I will die without food.

How would you re-write it?



pragmatism gives you no better odds given your point of view. Because all options would be equally as good.

See post #786. I think that clarifies and makes your point.

I swear your usage of the word "contingently" (as you are intending it) is incorrect in that sentence.

Having had this discussion with PhD's of philosophy and hearing no similar objections, I'm going to just assume that you're mistaken until given better cause not to.

As for your sentence:

I acknowledge that it's not necessary that I will die without food but I also acknowledge that I will die without food which then, in part, makes the statement "life dies without food" a law of nature.

The laws of nature come after the facts, not before. They are universally statements that are true because they correspond with the facts.

I notice you simply eliminated the word altogether

They are universally statements that are true because they correspond with the facts.

Contingent upon nothing. It's just contingent. The universe doesn't have to behave the way that it does, it just does.

I'm sorry, I thought that's what I was supposed to do.

My claim implicitly acknowledges that there are laws of nature so why would you ask me why I'm denying them? I'm not and never have.

Ok so what are you denying then?

1 - I think that trying to systematize an asserted unsystematic Reality implies a contradiction in itself...is like saying that the only Law there is, is not having any Law at all...as I several times pointed out, such is unacceptable ! (your "Truth" implies already the opposite ! )

2 - I would love to see your reaction if your account manager told you tomorrow that your money vanished for no reason...:bigsmile:

Future events are not necessitated by the laws of nature and initial conditions.

Obviously everything is contingent upon those laws, yes?

You are the one using contingent wrong. You should say depends upon instead of contingent upon.

The laws of nature depend upon the facts. The facts do not depend upon the laws of nature.

You are the one using contingent wrong. You should say depends upon instead of contingent upon.

The laws of nature depend upon the facts. The facts do not depend upon the laws of nature.

wouldn't it be the other way around? The facts would be different if the laws were different.

Twentieth-century Necessitarianism has dropped God from its picture of the world. Physical necessity has assumed God's role: the universe conforms to (the dictates of? / the secret, hidden, force of? / the inexplicable mystical power of?) physical laws. God does not 'drive' the universe; physical laws do.

But how? How could such a thing be possible? The very posit lies beyond (far beyond) the ability of science to uncover. It is the transmuted remnant of a supernatural theory, one which science, emphatically, does not need.

There is another, less polemical, way of making the same point.

Although there are problems aplenty in Tarski's theory of truth (i.e. the semantic theory of truth, also called the "correspondence theory of truth"), it is the best theory we have. Its core concept is that statements (or propositions) are true if they describe the world the way it is, and they are false otherwise. Put metaphorically, we can say that truth flows to propositions from the way the world is. Propositions 'take their truth' from the world; they do not impose their truth on the world. If two days before an election, Tom says "Sylvia will win", and two days after the election, Marcus says, "Sylvia won", then whether these statements are true or false depends on whether or not Sylvia is elected. If she is, both statements are true; if she is not, then both statements are false. But the truth or falsity of those statements does not bring about her winning (or losing), or cause her to win (or lose), the election. Whether she wins or loses is up to the voters, not to certain statements.

Necessitarians - unwittingly perhaps - turn the semantic theory of truth on its head. Instead of having propositions taking their truth from the way the world is, they argue that certain propositions - namely the laws of nature - impose truth on the world.

also can you respond to my previous post...#796?