The Fatal Paradox

@Amperage,

Amperage;160506 wrote:

yes, if P doesn't occur then, clearly, Q need not still occur. I have never said otherwise.

That's determinism, not fatalism. So the future is not "fixed" precisely because "Q need not occur."

@Extrain,

Extrain;160511 wrote:

That's determinism, not fatalism. So the future is not "fixed" precisely because "Q need not occur."

If P then necessarily Q

that is hard determinism

@Extrain,

Extrain;160511 wrote:

That's determinism, not fatalism. So the future is not "fixed" precisely because "Q need not occur."

@Fil Albuquerque,

Given the initial condition A, hard determinism says that necessarily B, which necessarily leads to C, which necessarily leads to D, which necessarily leads to E, which .....etc. etc. etc.

agree or not?

@Fil Albuquerque,

Alternatives are an exercise of begging the question...if this or that was to happen then such and such...but of course remains to be seen how "if

@Amperage,

Amperage;160512 wrote:

If P then necessarily Q

that is hard determinism

No, "If P then necessarily Q" is fatalism, not hard determinism. And it is clearly a logical fallacy. "If P then Q" is hard determinism.

If P then Q.
P
Therefore, necessarily Q

This is INVALID.

@Amperage,

Amperage;160499 wrote:

fatalism says something complete different and has no direct concern with either concept(free will or hard determinism), fatalism seems, to me, to say that what is going to happen is what will and would always happen(be it by free will or determinism or randomness)

Fatalism implies that what you will do, you must do (i.e. it is fated). If it is fated, then it is impossible that you should not do it. But that is patently false for many things you do, since if you had done otherwise, you would not have done what you did, and it was not impossible for you to have done otherwise.

Of course, what is going to happen is going to happen. That is just a tautology. How could what is going to happen not happen? If it does not happen, then it was not going to happen. That is just a trivial truth. If that is all the fatalist says, how could he be wrong? It is exactly like maintaining that your fate could not be avoided, since if it were avoided, it could not be your fate. Big deal!

Treason never succeeds. And, what's the reason?
If it succeeds, none dare call it treason

Fate never can be avoided. And, what's the reason?
If it is avoided, none dare call it fate.

(Sorry I could not get that last one to rhyme, but hell, it's philosophy, not poetry. TS, Eliot!

@Extrain,

Extrain;160517 wrote:

No, "If P then necessarily Q" is fatalism, not hard determinism. And it is clearly a logical fallacy. "If P then Q" is hard determinism.

so you're telling me that hard determinism says that "if P then Q" is not so by necessity ?????

@Amperage,

Amperage;160520 wrote:

so you're telling me that hard determinism does that "if P then Q" is not necessarily ?????

Again,

If P then Q
P
Therefore, necessarily Q

This is INVALID.

And,

"Necessarily, If P then Q" is not logically equivalent to "If P then Q."

@Amperage,

Amperage;160520 wrote:

so you're telling me that hard determinism says that "if P then Q" is not so by necessity ?????

Is a word game nothing else...

@Extrain,

Extrain;160521 wrote:

Again,

If P then Q
P
Therefore, necessarily Q

This is INVALID.

Not if hard-determinism is true. That IS hard determinism!

Kenneth please weigh in on this since you always seem to know the official meaning of the terms

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 01:48 PM ----------

hard determinism says things could NOT be otherwise. No free will no nothing. Just causal inevitability

@Fil Albuquerque,

@Amperage,

Amperage;160520 wrote:

so you're telling me that hard determinism does that "if P then Q" is not necessarily ?????

Does what?? Hard determinism say that (1) Every event is subsumable under a universal causal law. And, (2) Free will is false. Determinists do not hold that causes necessitate, if that is what you mean. But hard determinists do. If they do, then they are wrong. But since he hold (1) is true, they are determinists. If P then Q can be, and is, just a contingent truth. It is true, but it need not be true. It is true that if I drink a lot of milk, I will get sick. But that is not a necessary truth. I might have been able to drink milk and not get sick, if I had not developed lactose intolerance. It just so happens that I did develop lactose intolerance.

@Fil Albuquerque,

if fatalism is what says that what will happen must necessarily happen and not determinism that says that, then fatalism is wrong and determinism is right.

and we ought to be debating The Determined Paradox instead

@Amperage,

Amperage;160523 wrote:

Not if hard-determinism is true. That IS hard determinism!

No, that's fatalism which says everything happens with strict necessity. You are committing a modal fallacy. You confuse causal sufficiency with logically necessary truth! You already admitted that "Q need not happen." Do you not know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions?

And do you not know the difference between material conditionals (-->)and strict conditionals (==>)?

Amperage;160523 wrote:

hard determinism says things could NOT be otherwise.

No it doesn't. It says things could NOT be otherwise IF such and such occurs.

Amperage;160523 wrote:

No free will no nothing. Just causal inevitability

Agreed.

@Extrain,

Extrain;160530 wrote:

No it doesn't. It says things could NOT be otherwise IF such and such occurs.

this is both retarded and insanely obvious and simply confounding the issue and missing the boat

yes, we must have a given initial condition.

but once we do...hard determinism says all else necessarily follows

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 01:59 PM ----------

fatalism doesn't care about initial conditions nor necessity. It just says X will always happen. The reason it will always happen doesn't matter

if I've got my definitions backwards then we ought to be debating "The Determined Paradox" instead

@Amperage,

It remains to be proven how could something be otherwise only because its logical if such and such had happened...if they did not happen there is a cause for them to not happen just as there is a cause for things that happen to happen...Once given initial conditions for the actual state of everything in the beginning then what follows its not only true but necessarily true !

@Amperage,

Amperage;160532 wrote:

this is both retarded and insanely obvious and simply confounding the issue and missing the boat

yes, we must have a given initial condition.

but once we do...hard determinism says all else necessarily follows

NO it doesn't. It says once P, then Q. It doesn't say, once P, then necessarily Q. Which is the same thing as saying, if not Q then not P. Q is the necessary condition for P. P is not the necessary condition for Q. Why do you think P is necessary for Q?????

If it so obvious, why don't you understand it?

@Extrain,

Extrain;160539 wrote:

NO it doesn't. It says once P, then Q. It doesn't say, once P, then necessarily Q. Which is the same thing as saying, if not Q then not P. Q is the necessary condition. P is not the necessary condition. Why do you think P is necessary for Q?????

If it so obvious, why don't you understand it?

I'm just telling you what hard determinism says

given the world we live in
If I chop your head off you will necessarily die.

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 02:09 PM ----------

you seem to be more concerned with debating the modal fallacy.

I'm talking about the definitions.

Here are 2 definitions:

Definitions (1): Given the world, If P then necessarily Q.

Definition (2): Q will happen.

Here are 2 terms:

hard determinism
fatalism

you decide which one you think goes with which.

It is my understanding that Definition (1) -->hard determinism
and Definition (2)-->fatalism
notice definition (2) has no care for cause or reason or even the need for an if statement

what say you?

@Amperage,

The problem resides in distinguishing P from Q...But if P is all there is at one point in time, and everytime the P then subsequently Q, obviously this distinction is only practical for epistemic purpose...once P and Q belong to the same chain of Being, time is of no relevance !

---------- Post added 05-05-2010 at 02:20 PM ----------

Debating in a credible and meaningful manner implies to comment what has been proposed, and not past right through it as if it is not there, because it is there and it has not been proven wrong...

Philosophy Forum

The Fatal Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know