Logical determinism: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>John R. Brews
(Start page "Logical determinism")
 
imported>John R. Brews
m (typos)
Line 12: Line 12:
::(B) If p entails q, and p is necessary ''per accidens'' at t, then no one has the power at or after t to bring it about that q is or will be false.
::(B) If p entails q, and p is necessary ''per accidens'' at t, then no one has the power at or after t to bring it about that q is or will be false.


The argument for determinism then runs as follows:<ref name = Feddoso/>
The argument for determinism then runs as follows:<ref name = Freddoso/>
::(P1) The proposition: "Katie will wash her car at T" is true now, a time long before T. (assumption)
::(P1) The proposition: "Katie will wash her car at T" is true now, a time long before T. (assumption)


Line 28: Line 28:
{{reflist|refs=
{{reflist|refs=


<ref name=Beckmann>
<ref name=Backmann>
{{cite book }author=Marius Backmann |title=Humean Libertarianism |chapter=§1.2 Logical determinism |pages=pp. 17-24 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1L9buEySw5EC&pg=PA17 |isbn=9783110320701 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=2013}}
{{cite book }author=Marius Backmann |title=Humean Libertarianism |chapter=§1.2 Logical determinism |pages=pp. 17-24 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1L9buEySw5EC&pg=PA17 |isbn=9783110320701 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=2013}}
</ref>  
</ref>  

Revision as of 14:07, 10 July 2015

This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

Logical determinism is an old philosophical position that holds that "because propositions about future events are true or false even before the events occur, the events that the true propositions refer to must happen necessarily."[1] It seems absurd that the truth of a statement can entail future events, but nailing down exactly what is wrong with logical determinism has occupied much discussion.

An extended analysis was made by Freddoso in 1983.[2] Freddoso provides an analysis of the example statement about the future that "Katie will wash her car at time T". Several preliminaries are needed. One is the description of the truth of historical fact. Such a statement refers to things that cannot be changed, but are only accidentally true, that is, might have been, and in fact were not true at an earlier time. An example is a statement made today that Socrates drank hemlock, which is true today and in fact has been true ever after the event, but was a false statement when Socrates was a boy. This kind of truth that applies to a statement about the past after an event happens is called accidental necessity, or necessity per accidens. The truth of such statements is temporally contingent. This idea of the unalterable nature of truth following a contingency is expressed formally as statement C below:

(C) If p is true at t (for example, some past time t), then the proposition that p was the case is necessary per accidens at every moment after t, and the proposition that p was never the case is impossible per accidens at every moment after t.

This statement about p can be extended to statements q that are implied by p, as expressed formally below:

(B) If p entails q, and p is necessary per accidens at t, then no one has the power at or after t to bring it about that q is or will be false.

The argument for determinism then runs as follows:[2]

(P1) The proposition: "Katie will wash her car at T" is true now, a time long before T. (assumption)
(P2) So the proposition: "Katie will wash her car at T" will be necessary per accidens at every future moment, including every moment subsequent to now that precedes or is identical with T. (from (P1)and (C))
(P3) The truth of the proposition: "Katie will wash her car at T" entails that if the time is T, then Katie is washing her car. (assumption)
(P4) Therefore, no one (including Katie) will have the power at or before T to bring it about that it is or will be false that if T is present, then Katie is washing her car. That is, no one will have the power at or before T to bring it about that it is or will be true that Katie is not washing her car when T is present. (from (P2), (P3), and (B))

Fedderoso then examines challenges to the various propositions above. He attributes to Aristotle the view that truth or falsity is not even a property of statements about the future, which neither are true nor false before the event. However, Federoso supports as most plausible the objection, call the Ockhamistic objection, that the truth of p before an event occurs is established only after the event occurs, and while the early future tense statement can be true, that truth is only back-propagated from the time of the event. Backmann calls this the Ockhamist's claim of primacy of the present. Consequently, the truth of the statement: "Katie will wash her car at T" does not depend upon the truth of this statement before Katie washed her car.

Different objections have been raised. Backmann refers to Swartz, and to Keil as suggesting logical determinism confuses semantic with causal necessity.[1][3][4]

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 {{cite book }author=Marius Backmann |title=Humean Libertarianism |chapter=§1.2 Logical determinism |pages=pp. 17-24 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=1L9buEySw5EC&pg=PA17 |isbn=9783110320701 |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |year=2013}}
  2. 2.0 2.1 Alfred Freddoso (1983). "Accidental Necessity and Logical Determinism". Journal of Philosophy 80: 257-278.
  3. For example, see Norman Swartz. Foreknowledge and Free Will. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  4. Geert Keil (2012). “§2.2 Logischer Determinismus und Fatalismus”, Willensfreiheit. Walter de Gruyter.