Logic is an exercise of thought dependent on people who think and in their physical actual circumstances...

If an event can be subsumed under a law of nature, then that event is physically necessary. But it does not follow from that, that if that event is a person's action or choice, that it cannot be a free action, done of the person's own free will. The reason for that is that even if the action can be explained in terms of its cause (and initial conditions) the explanation need not be in terms of compulsion. It is only if the person's action is compelled that it is not a free action, not just if it is caused. All compulsions are causes, but not all causes are compulsion. So, it is not because an action is caused that it is not a free action; it is because an action has a certain kind of cause that it is not a free action. Forget analogies about dominoes, since dominoes are not people, and cannot be compelled to do anything. Analogies (pictures) often interfere with thought because they are simplistic, and may leave out vital considerations. People are not: dominoes, puppets, actors reading a script, and so on. If they were, things would be different. But they are not. (You have already suggested a different analogy about the future being like an unread book, you recall. And as I pointed out, you would first have to show that the future was like an unread book, for the analogy to work. Now, you have to show that people (if their actions are caused) are like dominoes. My suggestion is that all of these analogies should be dropped unless you can show that their premises are true. For, unless they are true, the argument you want to make on their bases is unsound. Why not just deal with the issue, and forget the analogies, since they are of no help?).

if you read what I wrote I was presupposing hard determinism. Presupposing hard determinism is real then would you not agree that people are like dominoes?

There is an old saying 'The wise man rules his stars'.


Perhaps fate can be understood as like a trajectory, based on the pattern of previous actions. Seen like this, it can be understood to be the outcome of causes that were set in motion a long time ago. The actual events or intentional actions which set them motion are long forgotten, but they still continue to bear fruit. Another way of thinking about it: individuals are often likely to act according to these tendencies which have become part of their character. Some criminals find it very hard to get on the straight and narrow because they are long habituated to theft. You might say of such a person 'you are destined to die in prison'. The criminal might however see the light and truly reform their character, in which case that fate has been avoided; they have 'cheated destiny' as the saying goes.

Of course in some cultures, there are other dimensions in this debate, insofar as there is a widespread belief in re-birth which means that an individual can harvest the results of actions committed in previous lives. It is generally understood that such causal chains are practically impossible to understand, but nevertheless such cultural attitudes often give rise to fatalism.

More to the point, logics are independent of reality, so the question of logical possibility doesn't come into it, apropos determinism. If determinism is the case, the state of the world at all times is globally specified by the state of the world any arbitrarily selected time, in conjunction with unchanging laws of nature.

Of course is absurd to think Logic is independent of Reality...that is a very big statement to be done indeed,

It is obvious you have no familiarity with propositional and quantificational logic because your point (whatever it is) is completely irrelevant to it. There are no "assumptions" required concerning empirical facts for the argument above to be valid:

All P are Q
X is P
Therefore, X is Q

This syllogism is logically valid in virtue of its form irrespective of what "man" or "mortal" means.

If you want to dispute first-order logic, then you need to dispute first-order validity and logical consequence, not the linguistic or empirical content of the words "man" and "mortal."

Please see both:
Syllogism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Logical connective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your terribly mistaken word-fumble above is a scandal against first-order logic. Nothing you said above is even correct. :rolleyes:

First-order logic deals with both truth/falsity and validity/invalidity. It is a purely formal device which cashes out necessity, possibility, and contingency. And it is formal/non-empirical/a priori science of the rules of "valid thought" which has nothing to say about the empirical world.

So please take the time to learn some basic propositional calculus and quantification before you attempt to say anything about it. It's pretty sickening having to see you trash a purely formal discipline over and over again with your own ignorance.

Please see the following on the difference between logical, metaphysical, and physical possibility/necessity:

Logical possibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modal logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Possible world - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see the following on basic first-order logic:

Logical connective - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Propositional calculus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First-order logic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I was talking about both, and pointing out that fatalism (the doctrine) is true in one sense, but false in the other.

There is only one sense of fatalism.

Yes, I agree. What I wrote was that there were two senses of "fate". And it is the confusion between these two sense of "fate" which makes fatalism plausible. You don't understand the argument.

Like all "big statements" ("big" means intolerably vague) it is both true and false depending on what someone or other happens to mean by it. It has no clear meaning of its own. It is like an ink-blot test. It means what someone or other interprets it to mean. No more, and no less. The kind of sentence that some people like to think of as "philosophical".

If I don't understand the argument it's only because your argument is in a constant state of flux. First you say fatalism is true in one sense and false in the other then you agree that fatalism only has one sense. If it only has one sense then how can it be true in one sense and false in the other, that makes two senses.

Maybe what you meant to say is that some people mistakenly confuse the two aforementioned senses of the word "fate" and thereby assume either one of them can imply the one and only sense of fatalism.

The doctrine of fatalism is that what people do is inevitable (literally) in that nothing that happens is avoidable. So that whatever does happen must happen. Human action is inefficacious since whatever a person does (what will happen must happen).

This view is false. It is certain that sometimes, human action is efficacious, and that it is possible to avoid what would happen unless steps were taken to avoid it. Controlled experiments and studies show this, even if common experience didn't. Now, what is it that leads people to think that fatalism is true? It is that the term "fate" has two seense which are confused. 1. What does happen. 2. What must happen. People who think that fatalism (the doctrine) is true, do not distinguish between these two senses. They think that because whatever does happen, does happen ("Che Sera, Sera") which is, of course not merely true, but is a necessary truth, that whatever happens must happen. Which, as we have already seen, is clearly false. So, on this account, the belief that fatalism (that whatever happens must happen, and that human actions are inefficacious) is true is the result of a fallacious argument, that because whatever happens will happens, that whatever happens must happen. Clearly the conclusion cannot follow from the premise. One reason it cannot is that the premise is a necessary truth, but the conclusion is a contingent truth, and it is a theorem of the most accepted system of modal logic (S5) that a contingent conclusion cannot follow from a premise that is a necessary truth.

I hope this clears it up.

Who said that human actions are inefficacious ???

I hope this clears it up.

It doesn't because you just talked right over me instead of explaining why you are saying fatalism has two senses in one post and then agreeing that it only has one sense in another. Please explain that. Did you make a mistake or what? That's all I want to know. You can save your walls of text trying to explain something I already know.

If I did, I probably miswrote. I did not know you were not interested in the problem, but only in why I happened to mis-write. I should have known, of course. You always get right to the heart of the matter. And you always knew why fatalism is wrong, too. I was under the impression that you did not because you never indicated that. Another mistake on my part. I should have read your mind.

It's disgusting and you should be ashamed of it.

Wrong...plain wrong !!! Logic devices without defined meaning in the premisses are just empty sets of nothingness...

You just dismiss things to quickly.

1 - Definitions on the nature of a concept can be infinite... (first problem)

2 - Logics nature has a being, a nature, which is limited to the scope and depth of the concepts at hand, and ultimately through them dependent on realitty, on concepts, their size, finite or infinite, their meaning, open or closed, their dynamics, relational, dependent or evolutive, or self shielded independent, and nominal...

The biggest problem of Logic is defining X in the first place...what is to be X even before specificity ?

what size is X a priori able ???

what is the scope of X ?

Can X be independent ?

Is there independency on concepts an they are finite, perfectly circumscribed, objective, or are they dependent and infinite in nature, intrinsically correlational ?

To put it better, are they continuum or discrete by analogy with space for instance ?

but then you storm with the obvious classical bla bla bla...give me a break !

Say something substantive about logic, instead of making a fool of yourself! Give me a break!

One should never miss an opportunity to talk when keeping silent leads others to think one is a fool, and talking removes all doubt.