71 of 168
71
The greatest proof of free will…
Posted: 13 May 2011 03:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1051 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 13 May 2011 03:39 PM

Only when you generally deny causal influence, you get away with it.

I do not generally deny causal influence.

I generally deny that causal influence is compatible with necessitarianism.

That is because what causal influences do is “change the future” or put another way “make a difference”

If all true propositions about the future could not be false then the future would be immutable in the sense of uninfluencable.

Making a difference would be impossible.

Influences “change the future” from what it might have been or make a difference between what it might have been and what it will be.

The might in the above is subjunctive.

Stephen

[ Edited: 13 May 2011 04:05 PM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2011 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1052 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
Write4U - 13 May 2011 02:07 PM

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2011 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1053 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1332
Joined  2010-06-07
Write4U - 13 May 2011 02:07 PM

I’m sorry, but that makes no sense 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. 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.

tongue rolleye

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2011 08:23 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1054 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5976
Joined  2009-02-26
StephenLawrence - 13 May 2011 04:04 PM
Write4U - 13 May 2011 02:07 PM

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.

[ Edited: 13 May 2011 08:42 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2011 08:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1055 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
GdB - 13 May 2011 03:39 PM

...you think free will needs real possibilities.

[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…

[ Edited: 13 May 2011 08:45 PM by isaac ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2011 10:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1056 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
Write4U - 13 May 2011 08:23 PM

The problem as originally posited is meaningless as it mixes fact with speculation.

No, speculation has nothing to do with it.

You must be one or the other is not speculation.

When I say if it is the case that you are married that is not speculation, I just point out the logical consequences.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 May 2011 10:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1057 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
isaac - 13 May 2011 08:30 PM
GdB - 13 May 2011 03:39 PM

...you think free will needs real possibilities.

[referring to stephen]
sounds right, gdb… though i’m no expert on what others think.

But why does that sound right? What I say is I’m on the fence over the issue of modal realism and fictionalism.

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”...

What you are saying is all possibilities are epistemic.

But this looks wrong because you also think that Obama could have not been president.

Since you know he is president, what are you talking about?

but influence and ability are a whole different ballgame…

Well you need to get epistemic possibilities playing a roll and the only roll in the moon influencing the tides, for instance.

I take the opposing view point in order to challenge those who disagree to take up the challenge.

If you succeed you win.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 02:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1058 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 13 May 2011 12:19 PM

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.

[ Edited: 14 May 2011 03:23 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 03:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1059 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 May 2011 02:49 AM

It is true that I can be married, or I can be a bachelor, but not both at the same time.

Right.

So if I am married, I cannot be a bachelor.

rolleyes

Wrong because then it is not true that you can be a bachelor.

But you’ve said it is true that you can be a bachelor.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 03:34 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1060 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 14 May 2011 03:11 AM
GdB - 14 May 2011 02:49 AM

It is true that I can be married, or I can be a bachelor, but not both at the same time.

Right.

So if I am married, I cannot be a bachelor.

rolleyes

Wrong because then it is not true that you can be a bachelor.

But you’ve said it is true that you can be a bachelor.

Then show me married bachelor…

It is true that I could have been a bachelor. If I would not have met my wife, or if I would have been homosexual, or…

But…

If I am married, then I cannot be a bachelor. Do you deny?

If it is true that I am married, then it is false that I am not married.
Please, please, please. Separate logic and language from reality.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 03:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1061 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 May 2011 03:34 AM
StephenLawrence - 14 May 2011 03:11 AM
GdB - 14 May 2011 02:49 AM

It is true that I can be married, or I can be a bachelor, but not both at the same time.

Right.

So if I am married, I cannot be a bachelor.

rolleyes

Wrong because then it is not true that you can be a bachelor.

But you’ve said it is true that you can be a bachelor.

Then show me married bachelor…

It is true that I could have been a bachelor. If I would not have met my wife, or if I would have been homosexual, or…

But…

If I am married, then I cannot be a bachelor. Do you deny?

If it is true that I am married, then it is false that I am not married.
Please, please, please. Separate logic and language from reality.

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.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 03:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1062 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 May 2011 03:34 AM

If I am married, then I cannot be a bachelor. Do you deny?

Of course.

Stephen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 04:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1063 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31
StephenLawrence - 14 May 2011 03:38 AM

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.
------------------------------------
¦--------------------------------- 

You are missing the most basic facts of logic.

[ Edited: 14 May 2011 04:21 AM by GdB ]
 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 04:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1064 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5939
Joined  2006-12-20
GdB - 14 May 2011 04:09 AM

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.

Stephen

[ Edited: 14 May 2011 04:29 AM by StephenLawrence ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 May 2011 04:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1065 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4375
Joined  2007-08-31

I think I have to give up.

Don’t you see that Mr X, who is a bachelor, if he would be married, would not be bachelor?

Don’t you see that I, who is married, if I would never have married, would be a bachelor?

If you stick to denying logic, I really start wondering if this is healthy… You are the hardest pupil I’ve ever had!

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
   
71 of 168
71