Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

@kennethamy,

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 09:43 AM ----------

What CAN refers to what will be and not to what I think it can be !
It may be that what I think will be may in fact become. This does not mean that what I think can be in the future will in fact be. It only means that I think that it can be, not that it can be. Future events are true, as present and past events just are.
In fact the Necessity in Truthfulness is necessarily about that !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;151802 wrote:

How can something that it is true not be inevitably true if it is true independently of Time ?

There's two times involved, when the proposition becomes true and when the events in the proposition take place. So, if I say Lincoln is assassinated in 1865 then the events take place in 1865 but there is no specific time when the proposition became true. The proposition is true no matter when it was uttered.

Also, just like the truth of Lincoln is assassinated in 1865 doesn't necessitate his assassination now, obviously, it didn't necessitate it then either.

The sun doesn't have to shine tomorrow but it will. That's why the proposition the sun shines on April 15th, 2010 is true. The sun isn't thereby necessitated to, however, and someday it won't.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151812 wrote:

The proposition is true no matter when it was uttered.

this is not the case for all propositions.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 11:07 AM ----------

what's that? example you say?

why certainly Smile

"Today is Wednesday"

is this proposition true or false?

today it's true....tomorrow it will be false

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 11:21 AM ----------

I think Fil brought up an interesting point about the modal fallacy being a fallacy.

This is something I alluded to in an earlier post but the notion was ignored so I'll reiterate:

I was essentially asking which is more likely about the following hypothetical:

Given(according to the some): All propositions have a truth value assigned to them at the moment they are uttered which cannot be changed(specially I'm meaning that propositions have a set value of either true or false strictly prior to the the choice actually taking place).

That being the case, then even with foreknowledge you will still not(either want to or be able to) change your decision....even knowing ahead of time the decision will lead to your death.

Given this:
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?

Because it's either 1 of those 2 options OR propositions of this nature do not have a value of true or false prior to the event actually occurring

@Amperage,

Amperage;151835 wrote:

"Today is Wednesday"

is this proposition true or false?

today it's true....tomorrow it will be false

Today is simply shorthand for April 14th, 2010. Translate it to "April 14th, 2010 is Wednesday" and it is timelessly true. Problems that indexicals like "today" and "behind me" introduce are easily solved.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151842 wrote:

Today is simply shorthand for April 14th, 2010. Translate it to "April 14th, 2010 is Wednesday" and it is timelessly true. Problems that indexicals like "today" and "behind me" introduce are easily solved.

by changing the proposition, yes, they are solvable. By changing it.

Sentence...."in QM energy is a wave"...true or false?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151812 wrote:

There's two times involved, when the proposition becomes true and when the events in the proposition take place. So, if I say Lincoln is assassinated in 1865 then the events take place in 1865 but there is no specific time when the proposition became true. The proposition is true no matter when it was uttered.

Agreed...

Night Ripper;151812 wrote:

Also, just like the truth of Lincoln is assassinated in 1865 doesn't necessitate his assassination now, obviously, it didn't necessitate it then either.

I never said the opposite...what it necessitates is that given the actual state of affairs in the world that are true now, a true one event in the future will happen in consequence...what is true is true independently of my knowledge of it !

Night Ripper;151812 wrote:

The sun doesn't have to shine tomorrow but it will. That's why the proposition the sun shines on April 15th, 2010 is true. The sun isn't thereby necessitated to, however, and someday it won't.

@Amperage,

Amperage;151844 wrote:

by changing the proposition, yes, they are solvable. By changing it.

Sentence...."in QM energy is a wave"...true or false?

I guess that is controversial. But it is either true or false. But NR did not change the proposition. He such made it more explicit. If "today" in "Today is Wednesday" refers to April 14, then it is true, and if it does not, the proposition is false.

@kennethamy,

For the purpose of clarity I must ad that even if I were aware of all the ensemble of causes that cause me to decide in a certain way, compatibility would be true, as the choice would be according with my knowledge, but still I could not, ever, do otherwise...

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;151850 wrote:

I guess that is controversial. But it is either true or false.

why should you assume it has to be? We know about fuzzy logic, and multi-valued logic, and ternary logic, so why must such a statement necessarily fall into boolean logic(bivalence)?

@Amperage,

Amperage;151868 wrote:

why should you assume it has to be? We know about fuzzy logic, and multi-valued logic, and ternary logic, so why must such a statement necessarily fall into boolean logic(bivalence)?

ACTUAL state of the World...meaning, is only logical, begging the question on what the World is, namely a set or a non set...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;151874 wrote:

ACTUAL state of the World...meaning, is only logical, begging the question on what the World is, namely a set or a non set...

I think you're basically saying logic works by describing what something is(true or false) in the moment(/ after the fact) and then(as far as I can tell) arbitrarily takes the position that what preceded it must have(necessarily) always been the case(if not arbitrarily then by using itself(boolean logic) as the justification for doing so).

or that what is the case is always necessarily the case

Is this what you're saying?

@Amperage,

Amperage;151878 wrote:

I think you're basically saying logic works by describing what something is(true or false) in the moment and then(as far as I can tell) arbitrarily takes the position that what preceded it must have(necessarily) always been the case(if not arbitrarily then by using itself(boolean logic) as the justification for doing so).

Is this what you're saying?

...I am not sure I completely understood what you meant...
But I do think that Logic reflects what is Real as what is possible considering the World a set...otherwise Logic would not be Logical, meaning fully coherent !

What can be must be, either because Reality is apparently "dual", several Universes in a Multiverse, or because what is in this Universe, is in its all the root of Logic for what is True !

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;151883 wrote:

...I am not sure I completely understood what you meant...
But I do think that Logic reflects what is Real as what is possible considering the World a set...otherwise Logic would not be Logical, meaning fully coherent !

What can be must be, either because Reality is apparently "dual", several Universes in a Multiverse, or because what is in this Universe, is in its all the root of Logic for what is True !

I'm not sure I completely understood what you meant in your post so that might be why...and I was simply trying to re-phrase what you said in terms I could understand.

I think you might be saying that boolean logic, in some ways, is positing that what is the case, is the case by necessity(whether it(logic) realizes it or not).

IS that what you're saying?

@Fil Albuquerque,

I guess what I am saying is that you cannot close a set which not fully explains himself, unless that set is all there is...

In a Logical system what mostly there is is reductionism and linear thinking...

My notion of Logic is indeed "physically" Universal ! (Reflects Being)

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 01:20 PM ----------

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;151890 wrote:

I guess what I am saying is that you cannot close a set which not fully explains himself, unless that set is all there is...

In a Logical system what mostly there is is reductionism and linear thinking...

My notion of Logic is indeed "physically" Universal ! (Reflects Being)

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 01:20 PM ----------

thus why I don't like the principle of bivalence.

It would seem to me that my actions must necessarily be indeterminate prior to the act for free will to be real....

this is not to say my actions cannot be caused by things to be more than likely this or that but my actions cannot be discretely this or that...prior to actually happening.

since I retain "veto power" prior to something actually happening propositions about what I will do cannot be determinate IMO

@Fil Albuquerque,

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 01:44 PM ----------

@Amperage,

Amperage;151868 wrote:

why should you assume it has to be? We know about fuzzy logic, and multi-valued logic, and ternary logic, so why must such a statement necessarily fall into boolean logic(bivalence)?

If something is not true then it's false. If something is not false then it's true. It has to be one or the other. You're not going to convince me otherwise without some good reasons.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151908 wrote:

If something is not true then it's false. If something is not false then it's true. It has to be one or the other. You're not going to convince me otherwise without some good reasons.

this is not necessarily the case within ternary logic. Thus begging the question of why are you assuming such statements are not dictated by ternary logic?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;151908 wrote:

If something is not true then it's false. If something is not false then it's true. It has to be one or the other. You're not going to convince me otherwise without some good reasons.

How do you Logically explain an emerging property on Nature when something must be true, without Final Causes ???

...remember I am not even describing what that something might be...

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 01:55 PM ----------

Amperage;151909 wrote:

this is not necessarily the case within ternary logic. Thus begging the question of why are you assuming such statements are not dictated by ternary logic?

Resume it for me in a couple of sentences if its not asking to much... Smile

@Fil Albuquerque,

only propositions about the future which must necessarily be true or must necessarily be false are determinate prior to the act.

^---this seems pretty reasonable to me.

---------- Post added 04-14-2010 at 02:00 PM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;151910 wrote:

Resume it for me in a couple of sentences if its not asking to much...

this is the definition as it's listed on wikipedia....you may be interested to look up multi-valued logic and or fuzzy logic as well

Quote:

A ternary, three-valued or trivalent logic (sometimes abbreviated 3VL) is any of several multi-valued logic systems in which there are three truth values indicating true, false and some third value. This is contrasted with the more commonly known bivalent logics (such as boolean logic) which provide only for true and false. Conceptual form and basic ideas were initially created by Łukasiewicz, Lewis and Sulski. These were then re-formulated by Grigore Moisil in an axiomatic algebraic form, and also extended to n-valued logics in 1945.

Quote:

The most widely implemented form of three-state logic is found in digital electronics.

Philosophy Forum

Defense of Freewill Against Determinism

Quick Links

My Account

able2know