Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151178 wrote:

But if statements about the future have no truth value because there are no facts that make them true, then why don't past statements have no truth value because there are no longer facts that make them true? How can statements be true after the fact if they cannot be true before the fact? The facts, in both cases, do not exist.

because a statements(I'm referring ONLY to propositions about free willed choices) truth or falsity is ONLY set after-the-fact and CANNOT be changed once it's set.

Thus, after the fact(the past) is when a value of truth or falsity can be ascertained and actually more than that, only after the fact are such values assigned or even applicable; before the fact no such value can exist or is null.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151178 wrote:

But if statements about the future have no truth value because there are no facts that make them true, then why don't past statements have no truth value because there are no longer facts that make them true? How can statements be true after the fact if they cannot be true before the fact? The facts, in both cases, do not exist.

This has already been explained, at least three times by at least two posters, in at most thirty minutes. What is it that you dont understand?

@Amperage,

Amperage;151179 wrote:

because a statements(I'm referring ONLY to propositions about free willed choices) truth or falsity is ONLY set after-the-fact and CANNOT be changed once it's set.

Thus, after the fact(the past) is when a value of truth or falsity can be ascertained and actually more than that, only after the fact are such values assigned or even applicable; before the fact no such value can exist or is null.

But the statement about the past is no longer true, just as the statement about the future (according to you) is not yet true. But neither of them is true. So what is the difference?

---------- Post added 04-12-2010 at 10:05 PM ----------

ughaibu;151180 wrote:

This has already been explained, at least three times by at least two posters, in at most thirty minutes. What is it that you dont understand?

See post 903..............

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151165 wrote:

Why not? It is true or false now that they will be true or false in the future.

Agreed, but it does not follow from this that they are true or false now. "It is true now that X will be the case" does not imply "X is now the case".

The past is a different matter, since it is closed whereas the future (unless one is a hard determinist) is open. The fact that Lincoln was assassinated is an enduring feature of the world, part of the total explanation of present conditions.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151183 wrote:

But the statement about the past is no longer true, just as the statement about the future (according to you) is not yet true. But neither of them is true. So what is the difference?

how is the statement, "Lincoln was assassinated", not true in any way, shape, or form? It became and remained true the moment it happened, but not a moment before...

The difference is one statement is after the fact while the other is before the fact....that's the difference...Agreed?

Statements about the past fall under the principle of bivalence(all statments are either true or false RIGHT NOW, absolutely, it's written in stone, null is not an option, neither is not an option either) by way of the law of the excluded middle (every statement is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no statement is both true and false)

@Night Ripper,

Amperage wrote:

how is the statement, "Lincoln was assassinated", not true in any way, shape, or form? It became and remained true the moment it happened, but not a moment before...

The difference is one statement is after the fact while the other is before the fact....that's the difference...Agreed?

He should have prefaced what he said by detailing his theory. And his theory, as far as I understand it, is that things do not become true. Things are, have, and always will be true or false. In other words, truth is atemporal, timeless. "Lincoln was assassinated" is true during any point in time, even before Lincoln was actually assassinated.

@Amperage,

Amperage;151188 wrote:

how is the statement, "Lincoln was assassinated", not true in any way, shape, or form? It became and remained true the moment it happened, but not a moment before...

The difference is one statement is after the fact while the other is before the fact....that's the difference...Agreed?

Statements about the past fall under the principle of bivalence(all statments are either true or false RIGHT NOW, absolutely, it's written in stone, null is not an option, neither is not an option either) by way of the law of the excluded middle (every statement is either true or false) and of noncontradiction (no statement is both true and false)

I think you are mixing up bivalence with LEM. According to you, they are the same.
LEM is, (p or ~p). Bivalence is, every statement is true or false. LEM is syntactic. Bivalence is semantic.

But I agree, not only is, Lincoln is assassinated in 1865 true, but it never even became true. It was always true, and will always be true. In was even true in 1765, although no one knew it. Truth is tenseless and atemporal.

@Amperage,

Isn't it true now that copper will conduct electricity tomorrow?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151313 wrote:

Isn't it true now that copper will conduct electricity tomorrow?

Sure (whatever that means). Every statement that is true is true now, and last year, and a million years from now. To say that a statement is a-temporally true is not to deny that it is temporally true. To say that 2+2=4 is a-temporally true (which it is) is not to deny that it is true now. Of course it is.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151315 wrote:

Sure (whatever that means). Every statement that is true is true now, and last year, and a million years from now. To say that a statement is a-temporally true is not to deny that it is temporally true. To say that 2+2=4 is a-temporally true (which it is) is not to deny that it is true now. Of course it is.

Because the statement "copper will conduct electricity tomorrow" is true, does that mean that necessarily copper will conduct electricity tomorrow?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151317 wrote:

Because the statement "copper will conduct electricity tomorrow" is true, does that mean that necessarily copper will conduct electricity tomorrow?

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean?

1. Necessarily, it copper will conduct electricity tomorrow, then copper will conduct electricity tomorrow. or, do you mean,
2. If copper will conduct electricity tomorrow, then necessarily, copper will conduct electricity tomorrow.

1 is true, but 2 is false.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151321 wrote:

Depends on what you mean. Do you mean?

1. Necessarily, it copper will conduct electricity tomorrow, then copper will conduct electricity tomorrow. or, do you mean,
2. If copper will conduct electricity tomorrow, then necessarily, copper will conduct electricity tomorrow.

1 is true, but 2 is false.

Right, (1) seems kind of trivial, like saying necessarily, if X is true then X is not false. Obvious huh?

It seems that Amperage was claiming (2). He thinks that if a statement is true before the fact then it's necessarily true. I was trying to explain the modal fallacy but I don't think I got my point across. I think he has (1) and (2) confused.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151322 wrote:

Right, (1) seems kind of trivial, like saying necessarily, if X is true then X is not false. Obvious huh?

It seems that Amperage was claiming (2). He thinks that if a statement is true before the fact then it's necessarily true. I was trying to explain the modal fallacy but I don't think I got my point across. I think he has (1) and (2) confused.

Yes, I have already mentioned that to him. 1. is a tautology, and, therefore, a necessary truth. 2. is not a tautology (obviously, since it is false). And is a synthetic falsity. But let me just add, that does not mean that it is not true that it is physically necessary that copper conducts electricity, It is true.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151326 wrote:

Yes, I have already mentioned that to him. 1. is a tautology, and, therefore, a necessary truth. 2. is not a tautology (obviously, since it is false). And is a synthetic falsity. But let me just add, that does not mean that it is not true that it is physically necessary that copper conducts electricity, It is true.

If you say so, I'm just trying to get over the latest point of contention with Amperage since I can at least understand where his mistake is.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151328 wrote:

If you say so, I'm just trying to get over the latest point of contention with Amperage since I can at least understand where his mistake is.

Yes, he seems to commit the modal fallacy.

@kennethamy,

what you both fail to realize is that what I am rejecting is the notion that "I will do X tomorrow" is a statement of value in terms of truth or falsity in the now.

The value depends on my free will and is not set in stone before the fact. That is what I'm saying....that is what ughaibu is saying as well.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 10:19 AM ----------

Let's break it down......

If the statement, 'I will do X tomorrow', has value in the right now then what does that mean?

It means that that statement is either true or false by the LEM and law of noncontradiction.

The value is set.

So hypothetically someone could know in advance what was going to happen. hypothetically I could know in advance what I was going to do.

But how can this possibly be?

It essentially means I'm destined or determined or just always will do what has already been set in stone before the fact.

I can't change it.....it can't be changed.

It as if the future has already happens....it's already been decided. The end has already happened. Nothing can be changed...ever... Free will is simply an illusion....That is what taking the stance ya'll are taking entails IMO.

I could know I was going to get shot tomorrow on a bus at 5:30pm in advance and I still wouldn't be able to avoid it

@Amperage,

Amperage;151352 wrote:

The value is set.

The value is set by what I freely decide to do in the future. That's what you aren't understanding. We already agree that the value can't be changed. We can't change the future from what it is going to be. By definition the future will be what it is going to be. That's trivial though. I can still change it from what it might have been. That these values are set in stone doesn't mean we aren't the ones setting them.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151356 wrote:

The value is set by what I freely decide to do in the future. That's what you aren't understanding. We already agree that the value can't be changed. We can't change the future from what it is going to be. By definition the future will be what it is going to be. That's trivial though. I can still change it from what it might have been. That these values are set in stone doesn't mean we aren't the ones setting them.

Neither position is falsifiable since you can not know the truth or falsity of a statement(statements about future free willed choices) until after the fact. So you really have no way of knowing if a statement is actually set in stone before the fact.....you are simply holding that view for some reason unbeknownst to me.

You claim statements(statements about future free willed choices) are set in stone the moment they are uttered. I claim they aren't set until it happens.

Your position puts you in the precarious position of dealing with the hypothetical situation of someone telling you that you will kill your own wife tomorrow and even with this knowledge you would be powerless to stop it from happening.

My position puts me in no such trouble as such a statement is worthless, meaningless and without value before the fact because the future is not set.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 10:46 AM ----------

Do you believe in fate? If you don't then you might want to re-think your position. 'Course maybe you do which is perfectly fine.

@Amperage,

Let's suppose that I can only say true statements about the future. Now let's suppose that if I were to tell you that you were going to kill your wife you would change your mind and not do it. This means that I am never going to tell you that you're going to kill your wife because if I did then it wouldn't be a true statement.

However, now suppose that even if I tell you that you're going to kill your wife, you'll do it anyways. In this case, I do tell you that you're going to kill your wife. It's a true statement about the future. You kill your wife. Of course, you weren't fated to do it. It was just the fact that you didn't care if you knew what you were going to do before you did it. Indeed, most people know what they are going to do before they do it anyways.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151365 wrote:

Let's suppose that I can only say true statements about the future. Now let's suppose that if I were to tell you that you were going to kill your wife you would change your mind and not do it. This means that I am never going to tell you that you're going to kill your wife because if I did then it wouldn't be a true statement.

However, now suppose that even if I tell you that you're going to kill your wife, you'll do it anyways. In this case, I do tell you that you're going to kill your wife. It's a true statement about the future. You kill your wife. Of course, you weren't fated to do it. It was just the fact that you didn't care if you knew what you were going to do before you did it. Indeed, most people know what they are going to do before they do it anyways.

So you are basically saying that the first scenario won't happen because I'd be able to change my mind....but, no, no I wouldn't since we have already presupposed that you can only say true statements about the future. I am powerless to defy your statements.

That is the problem right there. Either you must claim that I have no free will and therefore you believe in both fate and determinism OR you must claim that I would freely kill my wife anyways and NOTHING could make me freely choose not to kill her. No piece of information, no amount of money, nothing. I would still desire to kill my wife and would always freely choose to kill her.

I'm going to assume you will go with the latter since you clearly don't believe in determinism.

And there's nothing wrong with that position, per say that I can tell, just realize what it entails. It most defiantly entails fatalism. So depending on how you feel about that you may re-think it and it most certainly entails you living in a world where even if someone tells you ahead of time that doing X will kill you, you'll do it anyway and by your own free will even knowing ahead of time.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know