It is true that I can be married or I can be a bachelor. But if it is true that I am married it cannot be true that I am a bachelor. And if it is true that I am a bachelor it cannot be true that I am married.
Both are the same thing working with two valued logic.
That is because the statement you are a bachelor must be either true or false.
If it’s true it must be the case that it could be false
If it’s false it must be the case that it could be true.
Otherwise you necessarily are which ever one you are.
It is true that I can be married or I can be a bachelor. But if it is true that I am married it cannot be true that I am a bachelor. And if it is true that I am a bachelor it cannot be true that I am married. It can never be false that you are married if you are married and if you are a bachelor it cannot be false that you are a bachelor.
Your conclusion is based on an impossible premise. The statement “it can be false that you are married” if it is true that you are married is false.
My point is that you have to stop at that point, else we “can” end up with saying that it can be true that it can be false that it can be true that it can be false, ad infinitum.
Ah, see the problem is that the truth is you are both confused and not confused.
If you think you are not-confused by this thread that means you are actually confused.
However if you are confused by this thread then that means you are actually not confused at all.
It is true that I can be married or I can be a bachelor. But if it is true that I am married it cannot be true that I am a bachelor. And if it is true that I am a bachelor it cannot be true that I am married.
Both are the same thing working with two valued logic.
That is because the statement you are a bachelor must be either true or false.
If it’s true it must be the case that it could be false
If it’s false it must be the case that it could be true.
Otherwise you necessarily are which ever one you are.
Stephen
Premise (a) states that I am married as fact, not as speculation.
If (a) is true then (b) cannot be true.
The problem with premise (b) is that if (a) is true it precludes any further speculation.
If (a) was an assertion without knowledge of the truth then (a) is speculative and not fact, in which case (b) might be true.
If I marry a girl I am necessarily married from that point on and it could not be true that I am a bachelor, unless I divorced her, which would introduce a new premise (c), I was married, but now I am bachelor again. In that case “saying” that I am married would be a false statement in which case (a) is false and cannot be introduced as a true condition.
The problem as originally posited is meaningless as it mixes fact with speculation.
[referring to stephen]
sounds right, gdb… though i’m no expert on what others think.
from an omniscient, objective, deterministic viewpoint, there are no “real” possibilities. Possibility exists, in a deterministic universe, only from the viewpoints of real or hypothetical observers…
“as far as i know,”
“as far as you CAN know,”
“as far as knowledge, itself, can go”...
but influence and ability are a whole different ballgame…
It is true that you are married
It can be true that you are a bachelor
Which is the same as saying it can be false that you are married.
It is true that I can be married, or I can be a bachelor, but not both at the same time.
So if I am married, I cannot be a bachelor.
Or to extend it in your language:
If “I am married” is a truth, then, logically necessarily, “I am a bachelor” is false.
I am sure of this, for everybody in the world, because it so per definition. I don’t know if e.g. isaac is married, but if he is, he necessarily is not a bachelor. For me, it is an epistemic possibility that he is a bachelor. Again you are mixing up reality on one side, and language and logic on the other side. Logic is the way how truth and falsities combine, but that is independent of the ontology or metaphysics you have. You cannot derive from my normal use of logic that I am somehow talking about necessitarianism, I have no idea.
StephenLawrence - 13 May 2011 12:19 PM
I suggest we stick with the past to avoid confusion.
Yeah, let’s leave out the essential part! Don’t you see that actions follow when we (try to) anticipate the future? I walk to the fridge, because I am thirsty, and expect, i.e. have a certain idea about the future, that I’ll find something to drink there. I might have very good reasons because knowledge of the past suggests me that if I go there, the drink that was in there yesterday is still there (as you have children, you know that this expectation can be wrong, but wrong beliefs are not an argument against free will). I am convinced that the evolutionary success of consciousness is exactly this capability: to anticipate the future, and act, based on it.
It has nothing to do with seperating language and reality.
You say you can be a bachelor
And
You can’t be a bachelor
That is a contradiction Gdb.
Which word of ‘if’ you did not understand? We’re back to the point where you do not understand logic.
This sentence is about may way of seeing the world: If I would not have met my wife, or if I would have been homosexual, I could have been a bachelor.
This is true according to the dictionary, it is true per definition. It would still be true if I would never have met my wife, or if I would have been homosexual: If it is true that I am married, then it is false that I am not married.
Don’t you see that these are different sentences, an that both can be true at the same time, even when the consequents taken in itself (that is what you do) are contradictory?
Antecedent ¦ Consequent ------------------------------------¦--------------------------------- If it is true that I am married ¦ I cannot be a bachelor. ------------------------------------¦--------------------------------- ¦ If I would not have met my wife, ¦ or if I would have been homosexual, ¦ I could have been a batchelor. ------------------------------------¦---------------------------------
Antecedent ¦ Consequence ——————————————————¦————————————————-
If it is true that I am married ¦ I cannot be a bachelor. ——————————————————¦————————————————- ¦
No you are wrong and I’ve shown you why but will do so again.
If you are married you cannot be a bachelor.
You are married.
Therefore you cannot be a bachelor.
But you also say you can be a bachelor.
As often is the case what you are doing is 1) contradicting yourself.
2) Playing the teacher pupil role saying it’s me who doesn’t understand when in fact you are making a basic error.
The fact is you cannot be married is not a consequence of the antecedent at all.
Thinking it is, is called the modal scope fallacy.
