Extrain I don't understand why you think that fatalism implies necessity in the sense that it precludes free will.

What will happen in the future is already there we just haven't gotten to that section of the flip book yet.

But that's a tautology. You are saying if fatalism is true then I cannot avoid X. But that's just a definition of what fatalism is, not a reason for thinking fatalism is true. X is my fate if and only if X is my fate. This is a necessary truth. But the question is whether X is avoidable, or X is my fate, or X is a necessary truth. I see no reason to think "I will die in a car wreck today" is necessarily true even if I do, in fact, die in a car wreck today. We have more reason to think it is a contingent truth than a necessary truth.

I can set it up this way, too:

If fatalism is true, then event X cannot be avoided. X has been avoided, so fatalism is false. How is one supposed to argue against it other than suggest there is no good reason for thinking we cannot avoid X? I thought that's what you've been doing.

Fatalism is one of those empty philosophical theses which fail to say anything if it were true because it doesn't say whether X, Y, or Z is my fate. Why should I take it seriously? It is compatible with anything you say against it. That's not a virtue, but a vice. It is the same problem G.E. Moore had with skepticism. So to say "fatalism is true" is to beg the question just as saying "we are brains in a vat is true" begs the question.

What I said is that is one sense of "fatalism". The trivial sense. And, it is the sense people are talking about when they hold that fatalism is true, or when they say that fatalism is not falsifiable. On the other hand, there is another, non-trivial sense of "fatalism" in which it is pretty clearly false. It is the sense in which people like to say, whatever happens has to happen. That is false. The trivial sense in which "fatalism" is true is the sense in which people like to say that necessarily, whatever happens, will happen (che sera, sera, as the old Italian saying and song goes). As you say, that is a tautology. But the other sense of "fatalism" the sense in which it is false, is of course, no tautology.

But, not distinguishing between these two senses of "fatalism" is the error, since failing to do so leads to thinking that "fatalism" in the non-trivial sense is true because "fatalism" in the trivial (tautological) sense is true. It is just a confusion of senses: Which leads to a false philosophical view. As I said, this is only an application of Hume's fork. I was simply showing why fatalism is false, and the aetiology of the false belief in fatalism. Wittgenstein style. Once we distinguish between the two senses of "fatalism" the issue dissolves.

But more, this analysis to show that fatalism is false gives the lie to those who are persuaded that philosophical problems are undecidable, or that philosophical views are unfalsifiable. Philosophical analysis here has shows that the problem of fatalism (a philosophical problem if ever there was one) is not undecidable. It can be clearly shown that fatalism in any non-trivial sense, is false. And even more convincing, why some have thought it true. It is comparable to how, in chemistry, the theory of phlogiston was shown to be false, and why some chemists thought the theory was true.

Extrain I don't understand why you think that fatalism implies necessity in the sense that it precludes free will. I don't see why anything has to happen by necessity but rather things simply just happen and always happen a particular way.

If someone knows the future does that negate free will?

I don't think so.

If the future is known by anyone or anything that implies fate while at the same not negating free will.

the question is can the future be known or is the future known or are we at the leading edge of time?

I tend to think of time(and motion) like a picture book. A ton of "now" moments that were placed in a particular order, then, by flipping through the book, the appearance of time and motion ensue.

What will happen in the future is already there we just haven't gotten to that section of the flip book yet.

What, I wonder, makes you think that the future is like a still unread book? I agree that if the future is like an unread book, then the future as it must be, exists right now. But don't you need an argument to show that the future is like an unread book? Or, should we take your word for it?
An analogy may be a sound argument, but as in the case of all arguments, for it to be sound, the premises have to be true. Again: why do you think that the future is like an unread book?

If what happens does not happen by necessity, then what happens need not have happened, and the future is not fixed. Of course if there is a future at all, then something will happen. But that does not mean that if there is a future any particular event is necessitated, does it. It is true, of course, that necessarily, if e happens, then e happens. But how does that mean that if e happens, then e necessarily happens. Obviously, it does not mean that at all. E can be any event at all, as long (of course) as e is e. But, from the undoubted fact that e is self-identical, it does not follow that it e has to be any particular event. To think so, is a confusion.

OK think about a light wave for a second, a photon. A photon moves at the speed, c, at which time is 0. Therefore from a photons perspective all moments in time are simply superimposed on each other. A photon that does not get destroyed, if you could have a view from its perspective, would be observing all moments in time at once; all in one instant.

Also, prophecy. I firmly belive in the notion of prophecy and certain peoples ability to know what will happen before it actually takes place. The ONLY way I see that as being a real possibility is if what will happen is already sitting there just waiting to be ''got to'' in a sense.

The future can be fixed if it's already happened. Yes, what will happen does not need to happen but that does not mean that it won't still happen. That is what I'm saying.

If I went back in time to the year 2000 and did not make contact with anyone but just essentially lived off the grid, would it not be the case that the future would be fixed? It's all a matter of ones perspective and ones frame of reference as to what is fixed and what is not.

"P will happen" is not logically equivalent to "Necessarily, P will happen." Nor is "P happens" logically equivalent to "Necessarily, P happens."

"P" is not logically equivalent to "Necessarily, P." This is the fallacy.

OK. that doesn't say anything about fatalism. Fatalism does not have to mean Necessarily, P will happen anymore than I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow can be true while not being necessarily so.

OK think about a light wave for a second, a photon. A photon moves at the speed, c, at which time is 0. Therefore from a photons perspective all moments in time are simply superimposed on each other. A photon that does not get destroyed, if you could have a view from its perspective, would be observing all moments in time at once; all in one instant.

Also, prophecy. I firmly belive in the notion of prophecy and certain peoples ability to know what will happen before it actually takes place. The ONLY way I see that as being a real possibility is if what will happen is already sitting there just waiting to be ''got to'' in a sense.

The future can be fixed if it's already happened. Yes, what will happen does not need to happen but that does not mean that it won't still happen. That is what I'm saying. if I will wear a blue shirt tomorrow is true it need not be by necessity but it just means that I just always will wear a blue shirt tomorrow.

If I went back in time to the year 2000 and did not make contact with anyone but just essentially lived off the grid, would it not be the case that the future would be fixed? It's all a matter of ones perspective and ones frame of reference as to what is fixed and what is not.

That's not fatalism, but determinism. You seem to equivocate back and forth on the two notions.

If there already is a fact of the matter, such as P, that does not entail P is "fixed," simply because it is possible that P were not a fact of the matter.

If in order for the future to be fixed then it must already have happened, then, I am afraid, you have another problem. It seems to me clearly contradictory for the future to have already happened, since if it already happened, how could it be the future?

What grid are you talking about. Do you mean "grill" not "grid".

it was my understanding that determinism is what claims that what will happen will happen necessarily.

No, that's fatalism. Determinism just says something as trivial as If P will happen, then P will happen. It doesn't say if P will happen, P necessarily happens.

Suppose P has already happened. Certainly, it is still possible that ~P happened instead. So it is not necessary that P happened.

The concept of determinism conveys the idea that everything that happens could not have happened in a different way than it actually did. Or alternatively, everything that happens, happens by necessity.

it was my understanding that determinism is what claims that what will happen will happen necessarily.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 01:14 PM ----------

it's only the future from our perspective. Just like the light that we see from distant stars is, from our perspective, light from that stars past.

But what sentence are you talking about? If the sentence is, "You cannot avoid your fate", that is (trivially and necessarily) true in one sense, and (significantly and contingently) false in a different sense, so not only does it make sense. It makes two senses.

I will let someone who espouses determinism answer but I think that is incorrect.
The concept of determinism conveys the idea that everything that happens could not have happened in a different way than it actually did. Or alternatively, everything that happens, happens by necessity.

Determinism: Encyclopedia of Science and Religion

it is my understanding that fatalism can be compatible with both free will and hard determinism.

No. You're still confused. Things "happening with necessity" just means that causes are sufficient for their effects. In other words, if P occurs, then Q must occur. The "necessity" is a conditional necessity, not an absolute necessity. If "If P then Q" is true, this does not entail that "If P occurs, then Q occurs necessarily."

Suppose "if P then Q" is true. That's determinism. Now suppose P occurs. Then, it is also true that Q must occur. But suppose that P does not occur. That does not entail Q must still occur.

No, that's fatalism. Determinism just says something as trivial as If P will happen, then P will happen. It doesn't say if P will happen, P necessarily happens.

Suppose P has already happened. Certainly, it is still possible that ~P happened instead. So it is not necessary that P happened.

Event P is sufficient for event Q just says, "If P then Q." "P is sufficient for Q" just means that if P occurs then Q occurs. It does not mean that if P does not occur Q still occurs. Nor does it mean that if P occurs then Q necessarily occurs.

Sufficiency is not the same thing as necessity.