The Fatal Paradox

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161693 wrote:

This leads me to think on the problem of possibility of different initial condition to Reality, if considering true, Reality is all there is...How could have been otherwise ?

If it is possible there are different conditions on reality, which you admit, then it is also true reality could have been otherwise.

@Fil Albuquerque,

If Being no beginning (it is elegant and final), how could have been otherwise ???

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 09:56 AM ----------

Extrain;161695 wrote:

If it is possible there are different conditions on reality, which you admit, then it is also true reality could have been otherwise.

Yes I do realize the complexity of the problem...but still there is a fact against a non-fact even if it could have been a fact.

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 09:59 AM ----------

Possible does not equal Being...neither becoming.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161697 wrote:

If Being no beginning (it is elegant and final), how could have been otherwise ???

Yes I do realize the complexity of the problem...but still there is a fact against a non-fact even if it could have been a fact.

You say if there is no beginning, reality could not have been otherwise--which is true. That is a necessary condition for reality to be what it is. And then you admit even though X is a fact, Y could have been a fact instead. What's the problem?

@Extrain,

Extrain;161700 wrote:

You say if there is no beginning, reality could not have been otherwise--which is true. That is a necessary condition for reality to be what it is. And then you admit even though X is a fact, Y could have been a fact instead. What's the problem?

Could but it not, makes me think on why it not, and therefore if it really could...like if we were missing some "devious" property here...

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161677 wrote:

..it seams plausible to say that a contingent true implies the necessity ???

It is logically impossible for a contingent truth to imply a necessary truth.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161702 wrote:

Could but it not, makes me think on why it not, and therefore if it really could...like if we were missing some "devious" property here...

Well, you admitted it is true that U could fly to London to kiss his mother even if he is not in London at the time of his decision to do that. What is so "mysterious" about that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;161704 wrote:

It is logically impossible for a contingent truth to imply a necessary truth.

So I keep hearing it...

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 10:14 AM ----------

Extrain;161705 wrote:

Well you admitted it is true that U could fly to London to kiss his mother even if he is not in London at the time of his decision to do that. What is so problematic here?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161706 wrote:

So what? If he had made the decision to fly to London, determinism says he would fly to London. Just because he made the decision to stay home in New York does not mean it is impossible for him to fly to London. Again, what is the mystery?

@Extrain,

extrain wrote:

so what? If he had made the decision to fly to london, determinism says he would fly to london. Just because he made the decision to stay home in new york does not mean he can't fly to london. Again, what is the mystery?

why did he made one decision and not the other ????????????????

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161706 wrote:

So I keep hearing it...

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 10:14 AM ----------

It is a theorem in modal logic. So, I advise you to listen.

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 11:20 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;161710 wrote:

why did he made one decision and not the other ????????????????

He doesn't love his mother enough to take that long flight.
Although he makes all sorts of other excuses. And I am as annoyed with him as you seem to be. But what can you do with kids these days?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161710 wrote:

why did he made one decision and not the other ????????????????

Chill.

Maybe because he had too much work back home in New York instead? I don't know what his personal motives are. Ask him.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;161711 wrote:

It is a theorem in modal logic. So, I advise you to listen.

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 11:20 AM ----------

He doesn't love his mother enough to take that long flight? (If you really must know!)

@Extrain,

Extrain;161714 wrote:

Chill.

Maybe because he had too much work back home in New York instead? I don't know what his personal motives are. Ask him.

I just said it was because he does not love his mother enough. It makes her very unhappy. He could have gone if he really wanted to.

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 11:26 AM ----------

Fil. Albuquerque;161715 wrote:

Translation, please.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;161716 wrote:

I just said it was because he does not love his mother enough. It makes her very unhappy. He could have gone if he really wanted to.

---------- Post added 05-08-2010 at 11:26 AM ----------

Translation, please.

But that was not the case, so how could he have chosen otherwise ?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161715 wrote:

Likewise, how could have he not chosen otherwise, unless it is definitely proven that a cause (or a necessary condition) compels (or is sufficient)?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161718 wrote:

But that was not the case, so how could he have chosen otherwise ?

Why not? People sometimes do things even if they don't want to do them. I used to visit my old aunt in hospital even though I really, really, did not want to do so. Sometimes people just have to do things they don't want to do. Isn't that true in Portugal?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161720 wrote:

If I am to be the cause of something, and I do it, it is the case, in fact that I could not do otherwise

NO. Just because you do P, does not entail it is impossible that ~P.

You still seem to think contingent truths logically entail necessary truths. This is invalid. You don't listen.

Fil. Albuquerque;161720 wrote:

So what? I never said someone is undecided when they make a decision. That's a contradiction. If he wanted to fly to London, and made the decision to fly to London, then he would fly to London (ceteris peribus). Determinism.

@Extrain,

Extrain;161719 wrote:

Likewise, how could have he not chosen otherwise, unless it is definitely proven that a cause (or a necessary condition) compels (or is sufficient)?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;161724 wrote:

No. Not every set of necessary conditions are jointly sufficient for the effect. Example: If it is snowing outside, then it is cold outside. Being cold outside is a necessary condition for it to be snowing. But just because it is cold outside, this does not entail that it is snowing.

Philosophy Forum

The Fatal Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know