Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@Amperage,

[QUOTE=Amperage;151485]Really? I've heard many a philosopher use this phrase....it basically means "must do" "necessarily do" I suppose. So to re-write the sentence I could say the following:

If the statement "I will do X tomorrow" is true, then it follows that you will do X tomorrow necessarily"[/QUOTE]Not all truths are necessary truths. Some truths are contingent truths. What must be the case will be the case, but not conversely.

@fast,

fast;151488 wrote:

Not all truths are necessary truths. Some truths are contingent truths. What must be the case will be the case, but not conversely.

that is why the before-the-fact issue is important.

you are right and I agree but we then have to contend with the fact that....

even with foreknowledge you will still not change your decision....even if you know ahead of time the decision will lead to your death.

I have to ask myself is it more likely that a normal person would freely choose to die if they knew beforehand which choice leads to certain death? Or is it more likely that what will be the case must be the case?

@Amperage,

Amperage;151487 wrote:

I'm not sure what your asking....could you please elaborate or explain?

also, with regards to post 955, your statement, "If the statement, "I will do X tomorrow" is true, then what follows is that I will not do X tomorrow", is completely wrong but I think it may have just been an oversight on your part.

Crap! Got me.

My point is that you're going from talking about "will" and "will not" to "can" and "cannot." It's a leap you shouldn't be making.

@Amperage,

Amperage;151482 wrote:

yes, but the value is pre-ordained.

by saying I will do X tomorrow a truth value gets assigned right then and there....before you actually make your choice.

So if we presuppose the value was true then it follows that you cannot not do X.

Who preordained it? Maybe God did. But if not, then how is it preordained? Not by the fact that you will not do it, for as fast points out, from that it follows only that you do not do it, not that you cannot do it. Where does the preordination come from?

@fast,

fast;151490 wrote:

Crap! Got me.

My point is that you're going from talking about "will" and "will not" to "can" and "cannot." It's a leap you shouldn't be making.

see my previous post about this issue....in short yes and no.

@Amperage,

Amperage;151489 wrote:

that is why the before-the-fact issue is important.

you are right and I agree but we then have to contend with the fact that....

even with foreknowledge you will still not change your decision....even if you know ahead of time the decision will lead to your death.

I have to ask myself is it more likely that a normal person would freely choose to die if they knew beforehand which choice leads to certain death? Or is it more likely that what will be the case must be the case?

How is this related to what we were talking about?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151491 wrote:

Who preordained it? Maybe God did. But if not, then how is it preordained? Not by the fact that you will not do it, for as fast points out, from that it follows only that you do not do it, not that you cannot do it. Where does the preordination come from?

You tell me.....I've been questioning you guys about why you think statements about future contingents are assigned a value of true or false absolutely before the fact and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

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

fast;151493 wrote:

How is this related to what we were talking about?

because you are claiming that statements are assigned a value of true or false before the fact(prior to the choice actually taking place. prior to the move between what you say you're going to do and what you actually make happen)

thus allowing for the possibility of your becoming aware of the value and yet not being able to change it or simply not choosing to change it..

that's the problem.....I was saying well such statements don't have a value before the fact.....you are saying they do....the problem is not mine to solve but yours.

@Amperage,

Amperage;151495 wrote:

because you are claiming that statements are assigned a value of true or false before the fact(prior to the choice actually taking place. prior to the move between what you say you're going to do and what you actually make happen)

thus allowing for the possibility of your becoming aware of the value and yet not being able to change it or simply not choosing to change it..

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the problem.

@fast,

fast;151502 wrote:

I'm sorry, but I didn't see the problem.

Problem in a nutshell: since a value(true or false) exists prior to you actually making your choice a reality, it must be locked into one or the other. It cannot be both. So, If you found out that you would die tomorrow because you chose X instead of Y, do you still choose X because

(a) Free will isn't real and hard-determinism made it so?

or

(b) Because no amount of knowledge, money, love, power, fear of death, survival instinct, or happiness would be enough for you to freely choose Y instead?

Those are your only 2 options....so which is it?

You may not see that as a problem, but that is what I was referring to.

@Amperage,

Amperage;151495 wrote:

You tell me.....I've been questioning you guys about why you think statements about future contingents are assigned a value of true or false absolutely before the fact and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

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

.

But tell you what? I didn't say that the truth values of future contingents are preordained. They are not. If they are about persons then it is up to the persons they are about to decide whether or not they are true. You were the one who suggested that they may be preordained.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151507 wrote:

But tell you what? I didn't say that the truth values of future contingents are preordained. They are not. If they are about persons then it is up to the persons they are about to decide whether or not they are true. You were the one who suggested that they may be preordained.

if the value is assigned prior to you making your choice a reality how is not pre-ordained?

If "I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" is already true, then what am I to do? Similarly if the statement "I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" is already false, then what am I to do?

bivalence does not address the fact that hypothetically I could find out the truth value of a future statement before the statement actually happens.....at which point I am left with a dilemma....of course it could be the case(exactly what I'm arguing for) that there is no value to be had....a value doesn't exist prior to the event actually happening.

@Amperage,

[QUOTE=Amperage;151504]Problem in a nutshell: since a value(true or false) exists prior to you actually making your choice a reality, it must be locked into one or the other. It cannot be both. [/QUOTE]Propositions are true or false. Categorically (as far as propositions go), "true" and "false" are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive, so if there is a proposition, then it's either true or false. I'm with you up to this point.

[QUOTE]So, If you found out that you would die tomorrow because you chose X instead of Y, do you still choose X because[/QUOTE]Now you just jumped from talking about propositions (which is something that is expressed by the declarative sentences people make) to talking about choices. I don't get that. Why did you do that?

I will say (in case it's relevant) that I believe that most actions I make are actions made of my own free will, and I will say that I think it's a good possibility that determinism is true--at least on the macro level. But, I do not think (not even for a moment) that everything that happens is something that happens because it had to happen.

I think hard determinism and indeterminism (and thus libertarianism) is false and that soft determinism (aka compatibilism) is true.

---------- Post added 04-13-2010 at 05:57 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Amperage;151509]If "I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" is already true, then what am I to do? Similarly if the statement "I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow" is already false, then what am I to do?[/QUOTE]

I have a gray shirt on today. I had no idea yesterday what color shirt I would wear today, but I did decide to wear this shirt today (that so happened to be gray), and yes, if yesterday you would have uttered the statement, "fast will wear a gray shirt tomorrow," then it's true that you would have uttered a true statement yesterday, but had I not wore a gray shirt today, that would only mean that you were incorrect about the proposition being true and thus you did not utter a true statement (but rather a false statement) yesterday.

@fast,

fast;151517 wrote:

Now you just jumped from talking about propositions (which is something that is expressed by the declarative sentences people make) to talking about choices. I don't get that. Why did you do that?

I will say (in case it's relevant) that I believe that most actions I make are actions made of my own free will, and I will say that I think it's a good possibility that determinism is true--at least on the macro level. But, I do not think (not even for a moment) that everything that happens is something that happens because it had to happen.

I think hard determinism and indeterminism (and thus libertarianism) is false and that soft determinism (aka compatibilism) is true.

I didn't read your entire quote but I'm really trying to break it down for you as best I can.

Do you agree that the statement, "You will die tomorrow because you choose X instead of Y", is a proposition?

If so, let us continue.

Do you agree that according to the law of bivalence a truth value exists right now for that proposition?

If so, let us continue.

Let us assume the value that exists prior to the event actually happening is true(it could just as easily be false but let us assume).

Let us then assume that you somehow find out the value still prior to the even actually taking place.

Still with me?

Given our presuppositions you will still choose X

Agree?

That being the case we are left with 2 possible reasons:

(1) Free will isn't real and hard-determinism made it so,

or

(2) Because no amount of knowledge, foreknowledge, money, love, power, fear of death, survival instinct, or happiness would be enough for you to freely choose Y instead.

Those are your only 2 options....so which is it?

@Night Ripper,

Amperage wrote:

You tell me.....I've been questioning you guys about why you think statements about future contingents are assigned a value of true or false absolutely before the fact and I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

But didn't I tell you that us saying that future propositions have a value was not saying that anything is fated? Do you think that my telling you "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is true or false, is advocating fatalism?! It must be true or false, since all propositions are true or false, is all that is meant (it's a matter of logic)! That is why it has a value. No one here is talking about that written in stone notion you're going on about. No one is saying anything is fated or preordained.

Here's a tip, look at time independently from the proposition. Time has nothing to do with the matter. "Snow is white" is true or false, just as "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is true or false, no matter what time is referred to.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;151558 wrote:

But didn't I tell you that us saying that future propositions have a value was not saying that anything is fated? Do you think that my telling you, "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is true or false is advocating fatalism?!

it is if you're claiming that it has a set value before the fact.

I have no problem looking back retrospectively and saying, 'yeah that was a true statement.' but i do have a problem if you try to tell me that it was at the time....it became true...it was proven true...but at the time it was neither true nor false

Zetherin;151558 wrote:

It must be true or false, since all propositions are true or false, is all that is meant (it's a matter of logic)!

look up multi-valued logic....it exits....some propositions really are neither true nor false.

only those propositions about the future which are necessarily true or necessarily false have a determinate truth value before the fact..

Zetherin;151558 wrote:

That is why it has a value. No one here is talking about that written in stone notion you're going on about. No one is saying anything is fated or preordained.

Here's a tip, look at time independently from the proposition. Time has nothing to do with the matter. "Snow is white" is true or false, just as "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is true or false, no matter what time is referred to.

you may not realize you are talking about it but it's implied with the position you are taking

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;151558 wrote:

Here's a tip, look at time independently from the proposition. Time has nothing to do with the matter. "Snow is white" is true or false, just as "Amperage will wear a red shirt tomorrow" is true or false, no matter what time is referred to.

What about the red-slime snow in Antarctica? And this position, commits you to knowledge about unknowable things, unless you deny JTB.
In any case, over the last three pages there are several people stating that truth is timeless, all propositions are either true or false, etc, as if these are themselves some kind of facts, or matters that have been decided by observation, I haven't noticed anyone offering any justification for espousing this peculiar notion.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;151585 wrote:

In any case, over the last three pages there are several people stating that truth is timeless, all propositions are either true or false, etc, as if these are themselves some kind of facts, or matters that have been decided by observation, I haven't noticed anyone offering any justification for espousing this peculiar notion.

it would appear to me that their only justification is the espousal of determinism. Yet, they all claim free will.

Well then my friends how can a proposition about a future choice be determinate prior to the event actually happening?

This would be like me saying any of a dozen things which are indeterminate...such as predicting the time of radioactive decay of an atom....how can such a statement be true or false? It's indeterminate! Isn't it?......don't say anything ugaibu about my hypocrisy Sad

Not to mention as I said, the fact multi-valued logic really does exist blows the entire notion of bivalence and exclusive middle out of the water. there really are propositions which are neither true nor false.
Multi-valued logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ternary logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I really wish i could access this full article ---->http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fstable%2F184343&rct=j&q=propositions+that+are+neither+true+nor+false&ei=wRbFS-WQJY6I8wTTm-iYDg&usg=AFQjCNHCZ3Rin7DbuAV3nuYJ6UkVn6_xJg

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;151585 wrote:

I haven't noticed anyone offering any justification for espousing this peculiar notion.

My brain hurts when I try to imagine how something can be neither true nor false. If it's not true then it's false. If it's not false then it's true. But you're saying it's not true and it's not false so it's false and true? Again, my brain hurts.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151594 wrote:

you're saying it's not true and it's not false so it's false and true?

No, it's neither, because there is no fact which can award a truth value.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151594 wrote:

My brain hurts when I try to imagine how something can be neither true nor false. If it's not true then it's false. If it's not false then it's true. But you're saying it's not true and it's not false so it's false and true? Again, my brain hurts.

Sentences can be neither true or false such as the Chomsky sentence.

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However whether propositions can is another matter. IIFC U. likes the Aristotle-ian view that future contingents do not have a truth value. I don't know if he holds a proposition theory of truth carriers, but if he does, then it follows, in his view, that some propositions are neither true or false. Other people favor such a view too because of certain semantic paradoxes. They are called truth gaps. Other people again favor gluts (true and false).

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know