Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Amperage,

Amperage;151376 wrote:

So you are basically saying that the first scenario won't happen because I'd be able to change my mind

No, I'm saying that the first statement wouldn't happen because I only say true statements. Read it over again.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151377 wrote:

No, I'm saying that the first statement wouldn't happen because I only say true statements. Read it over again.

you're saying you wouldn't tell me because by telling me I could change my mind.....right?

@Amperage,

Amperage;151380 wrote:

you're saying you wouldn't tell me because by telling me I could change my mind.....right?

No, you couldn't change your mind because I would never present you with an opportunity where you would. I say only true statements, not statements that are true but then you change your mind about thereby making them false. Therefore, if you would change your mind, I wouldn't tell you about it. My statements don't lock you into anything. They only reflect what you have freely decided. You're the one locking me, out of telling you certain true statements, namely that you will kill your wife in the case where my telling you would cause you to change your mind.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151382 wrote:

No, you couldn't change your mind because I would never present you with an opportunity where you would. I say only true statements, not statements that are true but then you change your mind about thereby making them false. Therefore, if you would change your mind, I wouldn't tell you about it. My statements don't lock you into anything. They only reflect what you have freely decided.

you are attempting to bypass the problem by saying you just wouldn't tell me.

but why wouldn't you tell me? because I'd be able to invalidate you???
we have already established that everything you say about the future is true, therefore I could not invalidate you whatsoever.

or what if you just said it aloud and offered me an insane amount of money to do the opposite without saying why?

You are trying to by-pass the issue. But I didn't think this was the position that you preferred anyway; I thought you liked the second scenario better

@Amperage,

Amperage;151383 wrote:

we have already established that everything you say about the future is true

That's why I won't say that you will kill your wife in the case where my telling you would cause you not to kill her.

Also, there is a subtle difference. I said that I only say things about the future that are true. I didn't say that my statements are magic spells that make the future true. I know the future meaning I can see it before it happens. I don't control it. Hypothetically of course, for anyone just joining us.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151384 wrote:

That's why I won't say that you will kill your wife in the case where my telling you would cause you not to kill her.

Also, there is a subtle difference. I said that I only say things about the future that are true. I didn't say that my statements are magic spells that make the future true. I know the future meaning I can see it before it happens. I don't control it. Hypothetically of course, for anyone just joining us.

yes if you know the future you can say that I will kill my wife tomorrow with full knowledge that I won't be able to invalidate you.......you've already seen it!

Look, I'm not trying to invalidate your position.....I am just explaining what I think it entails and why I don't personally embrace it. Neither of us can be proven wrong or right on this issue so the back and forth is getting tiresome.
We both obviously posit free will.

The only thing I don't agree with that you seem to is that propositions about future free willed choices are either true or false in the right now....before the fact...set in stone.

@Night Ripper,

Amperage wrote:

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.

The proposition, "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" must be either true or false. Right now it does have a value, even though we are not absolutely certain about that value. Once again, acknowledging that a future proposition has a value does mean we are saying that you do not have a choice concerning that proposition.

Do you agree that the aforementioned proposition is either true or false?

Quote:

yes if you know the future you can say that I will kill my wife tomorrow with full knowledge that I won't be able to invalidate you.......you've already seen it!

You are confusing absolute certainty with knowledge. We can know many future events. For instance, that the sun will rise tomorrow. But that doesn't mean we cannot be mistaken. Noone here is denying our fallibility.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;151387 wrote:

The proposition, "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" must be either true or false. Right now it does have a value, even though we are not absolutely certain about that value. Once again, acknowledging that a future proposition has a value does mean we are saying that you do not have a choice concerning that proposition.

Do you agree that the aforementioned proposition is either true or false?

If you are referring to the proposition, "amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow", then no, I do not agree that said proposition is either true or false.....it's neither....it's null.

It WILL BE either true or false, but as of yet, is neither.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 12:20 PM ----------

Zetherin;151387 wrote:

You are confusing absolute certainty with knowledge. We can know many future events. For instance, that the sun will rise tomorrow. But that doesn't mean we cannot be mistaken. Noone here is denying our fallibility.

first, the sun does not have free will so it does not fall under the special category I'm dealing with.

Second, for his argument we presupposed that he can ONLY say true things about the future. That implies infallibility

@Amperage,

Amperage;151389 wrote:

If you are referring to the proposition, "amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow", then no, I do not agree that said proposition is either true or false.....it's neither....it's null.

It WILL BE either true or false, but as of yet, is neither.

What do you think of propositions like "Snow is white", then? These sorts of propositions are atemporal.

What's being reinforced here is that it makes more sense to consider propositions as either true or false, independent of time.

"Snow is white" is either true or false, just as "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is either true or false.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;151391 wrote:

What do you think of propositions like "Snow is white", then? These sorts of propositions are atemporal.

What's being reinforced here is that it makes more sense to consider propositions as either true or false, independent of time.

"Snow is white" is either true or false, just as "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is either true or false.

And I have been trying to reinforce the fact that snow and I are quite different.

Snow does not make choices......snow does not choose to be white one day and magenta the next. The only propositions that I think fall under this category are those which are propositions about the future that directly involve free willed choices.

Aristotle agrees that such situations are the exception to the rule.....at least according to wikipedia he does:

Quote:

Aristotle solved the problem by asserting that the principle of bivalence found its exception in this paradox of the sea battles: in this specific case, what is impossible is that both alternatives can be possible at the same time: either there will be a battle, or there won't. Both options can't be simultaneously taken. Today, they are neither true nor false; but if one is true, then the other becomes false. According to Aristotle, it is impossible to say today if the proposition is correct: we must wait for the contingent realization (or not) of the battle, logic realizes itself afterwards:

One of the two propositions in such instances must be true and the other false, but we cannot say determinately that this or that is false, but must leave the alternative undecided. One may indeed be more likely to be true than the other, but it cannot be either actually true or actually false. It is therefore plain that it is not necessary that of an affirmation and a denial, one should be true and the other false. For in the case of that which exists potentially, but not actually, the rule which applies to that which exists actually does not hold good. ()

the only reason I mention Aristotle is just to show that my opinion is not so outlandish.

@Zetherin,

[QUOTE=Zetherin;151387]The proposition, "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" must be either true or false. [...] Do you agree that the aforementioned proposition is either true or false? [/QUOTE]
The proposition is true or false; hence, either the proposition is true, or the proposition is false, but based on that (and that alone), I will not leap to the conclusion that the proposition must be true, nor will I leap to the conclusion that the proposition must be false. Suppose the proposition is true; why then must it be true? I don't think we should say that "necessarily, he will wear a shirt tomorrow," for whether or not he wears a shirt tomorrow is contingent upon events, not logic.

We are possibly mistaken when we say what we do, but that we are possibly mistaken isn't to say that we are actually mistaken.

Knowledge implies truth, so if I know that he will wear a red shirt tomorrow, then it's true that he will wear a red shirt tomorrow, but that it's actually true that he will isn't to say that he must. If he doesn't wear a red shirt tomorrow, then it's not true that I knew he would.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 01:40 PM ----------

Amperage;151389 wrote:

It WILL BE either true or false, but as of yet, is neither.

All propositions are true or false.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 01:42 PM ----------

Zetherin;151391 wrote:

What do you think of propositions like "Snow is white", then? These sorts of propositions are atemporal.

I don't think propositions are atemporal.

@Night Ripper,

fast wrote:

I will not leap to the conclusion that the proposition must be true, nor will I leap to the conclusion that the proposition must be false.

But it must be true or false, which is what I said. I'm not saying it must be true, or that it must be false.

@fast,

fast;151393 wrote:

All propositions are true or false.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 01:42 PM ----------

I don't think propositions are atemporal.

you appear to be on both sides of the fence with these 2 quotes...

"you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow"......right now this very second is that statement true or false(assuming you own a blue shirt)?

If you say you don't know BUT it is most certainly, right now, either true or, right now, false.....set in stone...

then suppose you could some how see that stone(hypothetically speaking).

Well then you would not be able to do the opposite of the what the stone says...even if you wanted.....not matter what...if it said "you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" and the value is true then you are now destined or determined to wear a blue shirt tomorrow. You cannot or you will not change your mind....no matter what. Even knowing this fact won't help you to do something contrary nor would all of King Midas' silver(dodgeball quote).

That's the problem.

Before the fact the value is indeterminate....null....unknown....not fixed...whatever you want to say.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;151397 wrote:

But it must be true or false, which is what I said. I'm not saying it must be true, or that it must be false.

Okay.

.........

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 02:00 PM ----------

Amperage;151398 wrote:

you appear to be on both sides of the fence with these 2 quotes...

"you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow"......right now this very second is that statement true or false(assuming you own a blue shirt)?

That statement is false.

@fast,

fast;151399 wrote:

Okay.

That statement is false.

so you take the statment "you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" to be false in the right now.

set in stone?

because that is what they are saying.....a proposition is atemporal. If that statement is false that it can never be true not now not ever....you cannot wear a blue shirt tomorrow even if I offered you 20 million dollars..

is this what you are saying?

because I get the feeling it's not what you're saying.

I think you are saying that tomorrow if you wear a blue shirt the statement will become true

@Night Ripper,

Amperage wrote:

"you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow"......right now this very second is that statement true or false(assuming you own a blue shirt)?

What has that to do with the matter? Remember, we're not talking about what we know is true, but whether the proposition is true.

Quote:

If you say you don't know BUT it is most certainly, right now, either true or, right now, false.....set in stone...

Stop confusing absolute certainty with knowledge. When we say we know, it means that we have a justified belief that is true. That's all. It says nothing about certainty. So, right now I have a justified belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. If it does in fact rise tomorrow like I believe, I will have in fact known all along. But my knowing doesn't mean that I couldn't have been mistaken, or that I was claiming absolute certainty (infallibility)!

Quote:

Well then you would not be able to do the opposite of the what the stone says

Noone is saying that you must wear a red shirt tomorrow or that you must not wear a red shirt tomorrow. What is being said is that you must either A.) Wear a red shirt tomorrow or B.) Not wear a red shirt tomorrow. In other words, the proposition, "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is either true or false.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;151402 wrote:

No one is saying that you must wear a red shirt tomorrow or that you must not wear a red shirt tomorrow. What is being said is that you must either A.) Wear a red shirt tomorrow or B.) Not wear a red shirt tomorrow. In other words, the proposition, "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is either true or false.

I'm only going to address the last part unless you would like me to address the other 2 parts...

The statement, "amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow", will be either true or false. But no value currently exists yet as to which it will be....it is not set in stone beforehand.

if that is what you mean. then you and I are agreeing.

On the other hand, if you are saying a value of true or false already exists before-the-fact and is set in stone(and which never changes).....we just simply don't know which one it is yet until after-the-fact.....then you and I are in disagreement

So which are you saying?

@Amperage,

[QUOTE=Amperage;151401]so you take the statment "you will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" to be false in the right now.[/QUOTE]"In the right now" isn't English. What I'm saying is that the proposition is false. If truth is as I am told it is, eternal, then if true, then always true, but to say that truth is eternal isn't to say that propositions are eternal.

A proposition is time bound and a function of statements, which are people (and thus time) dependent; hence, the truth of the proposition expressed by your statement here today is eternally true, but the proposition (though time-bound) isn't eternal. A proposition is not atemporal since it's said to be in time, but it's not eternal either, since propositions are people dependent. Truth apparently isn't atemporal (if what I'm told is true), but that truth isn't atemporal isn't to say that it's not eternal.

[QUOTE]I think you are saying that tomorrow if you wear a blue shirt the statement will become true[/QUOTE]If I wear a blue shirt tomorrow, then it's not true that the proposition is true. I'm not saying that a statement will become true. If true, it's eternally true.

@fast,

fast;151404 wrote:

"In the right now" isn't English. What I'm saying is that the proposition is false. If truth is as I am told it is, eternal, then if true, then always true, but to say that truth is eternal isn't to say that propositions are eternal.

A proposition is time bound and a function of statements, which are people (and thus time) dependent; hence, the truth of the proposition expressed by your statement here today is eternally true, but (and again) the proposition (unlike truth) is time bound. Not only is a proposition not atemporal, it's not even eternal. Truth isn't eternal, but it's atemporal.

If I wear a blue shirt tomorrow, then it's not true that the proposition is true. I'm not saying that a statement will become true. If true, it's eternally true.

"in the right now" pretty much means "at present", "the moment you uttered the phrase", "this very moment", "before-the-fact", "immediately".

There. Compliments of the Amperage-to-English dictionary Very Happy

How is the proposition, "You will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" false at present? Please explain. Because I honestly think you are getting at my point in a different sort of way, but I can't seem to get you to close the gap so to speak

@Amperage,

Amperage;151405 wrote:

There. Compliments of the Amperage-to-English dictionary

LOL!!!

I edited my post. Take a look.

Quote:

How is the proposition, "You will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" false at present? Please explain.

I will not wear a blue shirt tomorrow. Not only is that true, I know it's true, for I have made the decision to not wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know