Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Fatalism

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 8:28:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1.) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2.) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.
_________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, it was impossible for me not to go to sleep on 3/8/13

The argument appears to be valid and the premises appear to be true but the conclusion seems to be repulsive, for it seems counter-intuitive to us to think that, necessarily, I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

What do you guys think?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 8:40:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 8:28:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1.) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2.) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.

This is false. Just because it's true doesn't mean it is necessarily true.
_________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, it was impossible for me not to go to sleep on 3/8/13


The argument appears to be valid and the premises appear to be true but the conclusion seems to be repulsive, for it seems counter-intuitive to us to think that, necessarily, I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

What do you guys think?

Ironically I came across the solution to this kind of argument in this article decontructing the alleged inconsistency between omniscience and free will: http://www.iep.utm.edu...
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 8:51:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 8:28:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1.) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2.) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.
But on 3/7/13 the events of 3/8/13 haven't happened yet. Therefore, it is not true unless you went back in time. If you could go back in time, time would be meaningless and collapse.
P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.
_________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, it was impossible for me not to go to sleep on 3/8/13


The argument appears to be valid and the premises appear to be true but the conclusion seems to be repulsive, for it seems counter-intuitive to us to think that, necessarily, I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

What do you guys think?

A better argument for determinism is cause-and-effect.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 9:16:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 8:28:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1.) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2.) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.
_________________________________________________________________
C: Therefore, it was impossible for me not to go to sleep on 3/8/13


The argument appears to be valid and the premises appear to be true but the conclusion seems to be repulsive, for it seems counter-intuitive to us to think that, necessarily, I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

What do you guys think?

What I think is that a logical argument that inverts time is not valid.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2013 11:26:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/9/2013 8:28:02 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
What do you guys think of the following argument?

P1.) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2.) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.

The Fool: I am sorry Kinesis, It's nothing personal , But I have to call nonsense on your claim here. I can't help but think that you are conflating the Colloquial use of the TERM 'truth' with a rational, logical or sound notion of truth.

For in everyday circumstances, that is common sense, and often in natural or social science, the Term truth and or proof is used Loosely and rather quite inconsistently.

It important to not mix up colloquial uses of terms, when you arguing for something Specific.

Again, argument as in rational argument. That is to give a set of fact and show how the conclusion follows from them. By some form of concatenation of Particular facts.

Where Argument in the Colloquial sense, is simply, two people who speak angrily at each other, to have a disagreement, or a different point of view. Or to talk about difference likes or beliefs, and or Likes.

What is something is something, whatever it may be. In the same way x is x.
Truth is truth, and goes without saying that is necessary so.

I can add that truth is truth by law of Identity. But it as trivial are a circle is a circle.

Does this make more sense? Or does is not necessary make more sense?

And if it doesn't necessary make sense? Is it necessary that it doesn't necessary make sense. , and on and on..

Into infinity. And anything out of infinity is 0. Thus its zero probability that your claim is true.

And that would could Never be true is by NECESSITY FALSE!.

Do you see the problem here.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2013 5:32:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What do you guys think of the following argument?

The argument follow by necessity, or you mom is a monkey, who shoots grenades out her aZZ, for the taste of sunshine, is true.

First of all its not a proper argument in this form.

As in, what they hell is going on with P3, it is as if the argument started contemplating about its own existence in the middle of itself.
Secondly, P2 Should be on top, so it flows down to the Deduction.

DEDUCTION- AKA TO LEAD DOWN.
Ergo the conclusion Follows the lead.
Thus the expression "it follows. "
(don't say I never taught you anything)

Here let me fool with it.

"This is the original. "

P1.) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2.) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

But on 3/7/13 the events of 3/8/13 haven't happened yet. Therefore, it is not true unless you went back in time. If you could go back in time, time would be meaningless and collapse.

P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.

C: Therefore, it was impossible for me not to go to sleep on 3/8/13

"The Foolish version. "

P1) If I went to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

P2) I went to sleep on 3/8/13.

C1 it was true that on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13.

Via Modens pollens. P3) is completely superfluous and does not interact with the another parts of argument. Nor does anything else matter if P1 and P2 here are true.

For example:

P3.) If it was true on 3/7/13 that I would go to sleep on 3/8/13, then it was impossible for me not to go to bed on 3/8/13.

The Fool: Impossibilities are synonymous with what is Not.(capital N or all caps) That is absolutely Nothing. And what is Not does not exist to effect the argument in anyway.

bossyburrito: But on 3/7/13 the events of 3/8/13 haven't happened yet. Therefore, it is not true unless you went back in time.

The Fool: If what you say is true. Then it is never true that when you go to Press your keys on your keyboard you will eventually press your keys. (fatal blow)

It's like saying, 1+1 does not equal two, and it is false that it does, because I did not yet finish the equation. (and another one)

bossyburrito: A better argument for determinism is cause-and-effect.

The Fool: it"s the very same argument with different terms. Replace the term "cause" with antecedent and the term "Effect" with "consequence". And then say Tada!!!.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL