we have presupposed that Zoltar knows all....Therefore since a truth value exists for the proposition prior to the actual event(according to proposition bivalence), he knows what the value is(true or false, 1 or the other absolutely, not both and not neither, according proposition bivalence)

I thought my last post pretty much spelled it out. "Apparently you are going to choose to die." I see that as a problem....maybe you don't.

This is the problem with espousing proposition bivalence....I am left to wonder why I am going to choose to die....when I know ahead of time.

I suppose that is because you are not depressed or very ill. There is a large clinic in Switzerland which is dedicated to people who have chosen to die, and die by advanced medical means. It is legal in Switzerland. There is nothing impossible in people choosing to die if that is your problem.

you are attempting to twist the issue to try and escape it.

choosing X may mean choosing to take a taxi instead of taking the subway.

if zoltar tells me that tomorrow choosing the taxi in lieu of the subway will lead to my death and zoltar is always right...

well then for some reason I'm still going to choose to take the taxi. The doesn't negate anything(like free will), but it leaves one to wonder about the validity of proposition bivalence(or the validity of free will).

---------- Post added 04-15-2010 at 07:12 PM ----------

Emil was asking for an article which discussed the side of the issue I've been arguing and here is one that I found....I have not read it myself so I can't say how good it is or not but...

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=10&ved=0CCcQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.110.3388%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&rct=j&q=bivalence+is+false&ei=v6fHS93gC5X68wTvyO3kCg&usg=AFQjCNGRCIJGi1HYP5uzoa6WGhmgN8li0Q

Wonder what? And why?.........

why the heck I would take the taxi knowing it would lead to my death.....why? because I don't want to die tomorrow!!! why else?

Because you wanted to die, I suppose. Why else? As I already told you, some people want to die. You might find that mysterious and bothersome, but people have their reasons. They have different reasons, of course.

yes, that can be the only explanation if one wishes to espouse both free will and bivalence.

while before hand it would have been an ''accident'', after zoltar tells me it will be of my own free choice.....but one thing is for certain it will happen....thus why I think bivalence implies fatalism....nothing can change what will happen

some people may not accept that reasoning though....and IMO they'd have reason not to. As I've said....the simple way to avoid such a "freely choosing" to die problem is to assert that propositions are not bivalent...at least not all of them

So what is wrong with that explanation? It is hard to see where you are going with all this. As I told you, a number of people go to this clinic or hotel in Switzerland in order to be put to death. Couples go too. They do choose to die. Why should we avoid this fact? I simply don't understand what you are arguing anymore.

I'm not arguing.....if you don't have a problem with being told doing X will kill you by zoltar and understanding that for whatever reason you are still going to freely choose X then there is no problem.

I don't have a problem with this....apparently you don't either....therefore there is no argument.

I then simply stated in passing that there are those who would not accept this fact. It may seem to them to be more likely that propositions are not bivalent than to think they would freely choose X knowing full well in advance X will be their death.

But it is a fact that people do exactly that. So what does it mean to have a problem with accepting that fact. The nuclear bomb is difficult to accept to. But it is a fact that there is a nuclear bomb. Should we give up on bi-valence so that we needn't accept the existence of the nuclear bomb? I am baffled.

I'm not arguing.....if you don't have a problem with being told, doing X will kill you, by zoltar, and understanding that, for whatever reason, you are still going to freely choose X, then there is no problem.

I don't have a problem with this....apparently you don't either....therefore there is no argument.

I then simply stated in passing that there are those who would not accept this fact. It may seem to them to be more likely that propositions are not bivalent than to think they would freely choose X knowing full well in advance X will be their death.

As a believer in God and a believer in God's foreknowledge and things like prophecy, I feel obligated to espouse bivalence, but those who either don't believe in God or don't think God knows the future would not be obligated to espouse bivalence.

What has God's foreknowledge to do with it?

God knows what I will do, but that doesn't force me to do what I do, does it?

So why does God's knowing I will brush tomorrow morning mean that I will not brush of my own free will? Answer, it doesn't. No more than that my wife's knowing it means that I won't brush of my own free will.

God's foreknowledge proves to me why bivalence is true...

No, it doesn't force you to do anything.....I didn't say it did.

It doesn't and I never said it did....I don't know how you got that I thought this from what I wrote, but you certainty thrashed a strawman.....and I'm in total agreement with everything you said

God's foreknowledge proves to me why bivalence is true...
Could you explain that? But could you leave off the "to me" bit?

Suppose that God perfectly knows that you are going to brush your teeth tomorrow. How does that prove that bivalence is true?

the reason I say that is because I think God REALLY does know the future.

Therefore for me to say that bivalence is false would be to say that, no one, not even God could know or tell me the outcome of a future choice before the choice actually happens because if propositions are NOT bivalent then no truth-value exists before the fact to be known.

But what is supposed to be the relation between God's foreknowledge and free will, then? I don't see how all this is supposed to connect up with the op.

It doesn't connect to the OP but you asked me to clarify how my belief in God proves to me that propositions are bivalent so I did.

But the fact that there is human knowledge proves that there are true and false propositions, since no one could know anything unless what was known is true. So why is God's knowledge special? But God's knowledge does not prove bi-valence since if there are any statements that are neither true nor false, then God cannot know them either. Take, for instance the statement that Hamlet sneezed before he murdered Polonius (in Shakepeare's play). No one, not even God, could know whether or not that statement is true or false. God, doubtless, knows whatever there is that can be known, but even God cannot know what cannot be known.

sure it proves it...and I just explained why....

So do you want to argue that propositions can be neither true nor false now????

Some propositions, like the one about Hamlet, sure. That one is neither true nor false. I never said that all statements are either true or false. That isn't true.