Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Modal Logic Sucks.

Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

Possibility and necessity, then, only make sense in an epistemic sense. It is possible that the only life in the Universe is in our solar system, but whatever the answer is, it had to be that way. It is necessary that 1=1=2, 'necessary' because there cannot be any other possible answer.

Modal logic is pure sophistry. The sense it deploys 'necessary' and 'possible' are completely metaphysical. The modal argument will claim that God does not necessarily not exist, therefore he must exist in some possible world, and therefore in all possible worlds. These 'possible worlds' are completely imaginary, serving only to describe an epistemic issue wherein an absolute conclusion cannot be drawn. Reality necessarily is what it is, it was never influenced to be one way or another; however, we do not know what the exact content of reality is, and so 'possible worlds' are conceivable possibilities regarding a 'necessary' reality. Claiming that God is possible, then, is the statement that he could conceivably exist, and claiming him to 'necessarily exist' can only mean that it is inconceivable that he does not. The modal argument for God, then, can be reduced to 'It's conceivable that God exists, and it is inconceivable that he does not, therefore he exists', which means it fails as an argument, since its a completely circular argument that rests on the unproven axiom that it is inconceivable that he does not exist.

The Chalmers' zombie argument is similarly awful.

1. According to physicalism, all that exists in our world (including consciousness) is physical.
2. Thus, if physicalism is true, a metaphysically possible world in which all physical facts are the same as those of the actual world must contain everything that exists in our actual world. In particular, conscious experience must exist in such a possible world.
3. In fact we can conceive of a world physically indistinguishable from our world but in which there is no consciousness (a zombie world). From this (so Chalmers argues) it follows that such a world is metaphysically possible.
C. Therefore, physicalism is false.

Translation:
1. Physicalism states that everything is physical, i.e. there is no mind/body dualism, and reality is not ultimately dependent on a mind (however that is meant to work)
2. If physicalism is true, then a hypothetical reality physically identical to reality must contain consciosuness
3. But I can conceive of a hypothetical reality which is physically identical to reality but features no consciousness
C. By simply assuming physicalism is wrong, I have proven it to be wrong.

This argument is literally as effective as arguing:
1. Einstein states that there is no possibility that something can go faster than the speed of light
2. If Einstein is correct, then it is inconceivable that something can go faster than the speed of light
3. But I can conceive of something that can go faster than the speed of light
C. Derp

Seriously, if Chalmers' argument was logical, then you could sabotage any claim whatsoever to anything following from any premises. Just follow this formula:
1. X necessarily entails A
2. If X necessarily entails A, then any hypothetical world containing X must contain A
3. But I can imagine a world that contains X but does not contain A
C. X does not entail A

1. 1+1 necessarily entails 2
2. There is no hypothetical world in which 1+1 is not equal to 2
3. But I think 1+1=1x1
C. 1+1 does not necessarily entail 2, because it is conceivable that it is not
SargonOfAkkad
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 5:13:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are modal logic systems which don't use possibility, so this isn't a criticism of modal logic as much as it is a criticism of modal logic systems like S5. If anything, your OP actually amounts to a defense of TRIV modal logic, which you would probably take a liking to based on your statements.
bigman69
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 7:11:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

The problem with this argument is that premise one places restrictions on what is "possible" - namely, that something be determined - an assumption which you don't consistently apply throughout the argument. You state that reality must be uncaused, which means that something doesn't have to be determined to exist, like you claim it does in premise one. (This is dylancatlow btw.)
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 8:58:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 5:13:36 PM, SargonOfAkkad wrote:
There are modal logic systems which don't use possibility, so this isn't a criticism of modal logic as much as it is a criticism of modal logic systems like S5. If anything, your OP actually amounts to a defense of TRIV modal logic, which you would probably take a liking to based on your statements.

Sure thing wizard of Akkad.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:06:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 7:11:32 PM, bigman69 wrote:
At 1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

The problem with this argument is that premise one places restrictions on what is "possible" - namely, that something be determined - an assumption which you don't consistently apply throughout the argument. You state that reality must be uncaused, which means that something doesn't have to be determined to exist, like you claim it does in premise one. (This is dylancatlow btw.)

Hi Dylan. bigman69 is a pretty sexy name. Your asexual ways have ceased to be? I'd say that reality is not a possibility in the sense that there are no other possible alternatives. If something is 'impossible', it's not a valid alternative, but to say that reality is a 'possibility' naturally means there must be valid alternatives, but if that is the case then these possibilities are not real, which shows that there are none. You must have liked the Chalmers bit, no? I suppose guys like him get so much recognition because they put forward arguments which are interesting to refute.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:08:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 5:13:36 PM, SargonOfAkkad wrote:
There are modal logic systems which don't use possibility, so this isn't a criticism of modal logic as much as it is a criticism of modal logic systems like S5. If anything, your OP actually amounts to a defense of TRIV modal logic, which you would probably take a liking to based on your statements.

Wait... take a liking too? We aren't talking about valid alternatives here. It's not a matter of preference - it's quite necessary.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:19:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This amounts to you have peculiar views on metaphysical issues and taking controversial issues as givens. Defend 1.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 9:06:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/19/2015 7:11:32 PM, bigman69 wrote:
At 1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

The problem with this argument is that premise one places restrictions on what is "possible" - namely, that something be determined - an assumption which you don't consistently apply throughout the argument. You state that reality must be uncaused, which means that something doesn't have to be determined to exist, like you claim it does in premise one. (This is dylancatlow btw.)

Hi Dylan. bigman69 is a pretty sexy name. Your asexual ways have ceased to be?

What are you talking about lol

I'd say that reality is not a possibility in the sense that there are no other possible alternatives. If something is 'impossible', it's not a valid alternative, but to say that reality is a 'possibility' naturally means there must be valid alternatives, but if that is the case then these possibilities are not real, which shows that there are none.

They are only real as possibilities. All "unreal definitions of reality" are defined in reality's syntax so that reality remains one coherent system. In other words, the possibilities are " really unreal".
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 9:52:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 9:43:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/19/2015 9:06:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/19/2015 7:11:32 PM, bigman69 wrote:
At 1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

The problem with this argument is that premise one places restrictions on what is "possible" - namely, that something be determined - an assumption which you don't consistently apply throughout the argument. You state that reality must be uncaused, which means that something doesn't have to be determined to exist, like you claim it does in premise one. (This is dylancatlow btw.)

Hi Dylan. bigman69 is a pretty sexy name. Your asexual ways have ceased to be?

What are you talking about lol

You never told me you had a girlfriend.

I'd say that reality is not a possibility in the sense that there are no other possible alternatives. If something is 'impossible', it's not a valid alternative, but to say that reality is a 'possibility' naturally means there must be valid alternatives, but if that is the case then these possibilities are not real, which shows that there are none.

They are only real as possibilities. All "unreal definitions of reality" are defined in reality's syntax so that reality remains one coherent system. In other words, the possibilities are " really unreal".

I think we've had this argument about a thousand times. You may as well try to convince me to stop watching porn and commit to eternal sobriety, or to stop having sandwiches for breakfast.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2015 10:05:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 9:52:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/19/2015 9:43:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/19/2015 9:06:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/19/2015 7:11:32 PM, bigman69 wrote:
At 1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

The problem with this argument is that premise one places restrictions on what is "possible" - namely, that something be determined - an assumption which you don't consistently apply throughout the argument. You state that reality must be uncaused, which means that something doesn't have to be determined to exist, like you claim it does in premise one. (This is dylancatlow btw.)

Hi Dylan. bigman69 is a pretty sexy name. Your asexual ways have ceased to be?

What are you talking about lol


You never told me you had a girlfriend.


Oh, are you referring to gothapotamus? Yeah, she's my hoe. I bet you're super jealous.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 9:42:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
From what I understand arguments for god based in Modal Logic propose 'possible' worlds and then uses some premises of those supposedly possible things to argue that those things have reality....

so.. they're pretty much just as terrible as other ontological arguments.

we need to be explicit that when we say 'possible' we do not mean that it truly CAN exist... Rather that we do not know if it Does or Does Not exist.

when we say it COULD exist we do NOT mean that the universe/reality allows for such a thing, Rather we mean that we do not know whether it can exist... That, so far as we're concerned.. From Our limited perspective, it would seem that the universe/reality May be so as to allow such a thing.

Our deeming it "possible" does NOT give it any special sanction or grip upon actual Reality... Rather that possibility is a function of Our Own manner of understanding the universe, and the limited perspective from which we view it.

so, regardless of whatever these supposedly 'possible' things are premised upon there should be no: "It's possible, Therefore... something about reality."

No. "It's possible" doe NOT describe how the supposed thing relates to the universe, it (at best) describes how it relates to our particular perspective.... and there is no jump that launches an idea straight from how we can imagine reality being to such things actually being Substantive in reality.

The only defensible claims to Reality are limited ones which acknowledge their dependence upon the perspective from which they were derived.

Also, I would suggest, that we need Pragmatic justification to assert such Perspective-bound ideas as being the case... Not only must such assertions be recognized as being assumptions, but we should explain why we feel the need to make such perspective-bound assumptions.

This is all easily justified for by our having spontaneous feelings of pleasure and pain, and the recurrent patterns of stimuli which are associated with, and which seem to allow us to exercise control over when/what we experience.

In this manner, It is easy to justify empirically based conceptions based upon recurrent patterns as being worthy of presumption... For they seem to Work at making our future experience nicer.

That is the manner in which conceptions of reality can be justified... not by suggesting that our being Capable of Conceiving it gives it any kind of traction to claim to being substantive in Reality.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 1:01:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 10:05:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/19/2015 9:52:08 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/19/2015 9:43:45 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 1/19/2015 9:06:28 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 1/19/2015 7:11:32 PM, bigman69 wrote:
At 1/19/2015 4:44:03 PM, Wocambs wrote:
1. A possibility is something yet to be determined
2. Reality cannot possibly be in a causal relationship with something, there being nothing else
3. Determination is a casual event
Conclusion: The reality that exists could not have been any other way.

The problem with this argument is that premise one places restrictions on what is "possible" - namely, that something be determined - an assumption which you don't consistently apply throughout the argument. You state that reality must be uncaused, which means that something doesn't have to be determined to exist, like you claim it does in premise one. (This is dylancatlow btw.)

Hi Dylan. bigman69 is a pretty sexy name. Your asexual ways have ceased to be?

What are you talking about lol


You never told me you had a girlfriend.


Oh, are you referring to gothapotamus? Yeah, she's my hoe. I bet you're super jealous.

Ahhh you used your pretty face to seduce her.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 1:03:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 9:42:46 AM, mortsdor wrote:
From what I understand arguments for god based in Modal Logic propose 'possible' worlds and then uses some premises of those supposedly possible things to argue that those things have reality....

so.. they're pretty much just as terrible as other ontological arguments.

we need to be explicit that when we say 'possible' we do not mean that it truly CAN exist... Rather that we do not know if it Does or Does Not exist.

when we say it COULD exist we do NOT mean that the universe/reality allows for such a thing, Rather we mean that we do not know whether it can exist... That, so far as we're concerned.. From Our limited perspective, it would seem that the universe/reality May be so as to allow such a thing.

Our deeming it "possible" does NOT give it any special sanction or grip upon actual Reality... Rather that possibility is a function of Our Own manner of understanding the universe, and the limited perspective from which we view it.

so, regardless of whatever these supposedly 'possible' things are premised upon there should be no: "It's possible, Therefore... something about reality."

That is exactly the point I was trying to make! I like you.

No. "It's possible" doe NOT describe how the supposed thing relates to the universe, it (at best) describes how it relates to our particular perspective.... and there is no jump that launches an idea straight from how we can imagine reality being to such things actually being Substantive in reality.

The only defensible claims to Reality are limited ones which acknowledge their dependence upon the perspective from which they were derived.

Also, I would suggest, that we need Pragmatic justification to assert such Perspective-bound ideas as being the case... Not only must such assertions be recognized as being assumptions, but we should explain why we feel the need to make such perspective-bound assumptions.

This is all easily justified for by our having spontaneous feelings of pleasure and pain, and the recurrent patterns of stimuli which are associated with, and which seem to allow us to exercise control over when/what we experience.

In this manner, It is easy to justify empirically based conceptions based upon recurrent patterns as being worthy of presumption... For they seem to Work at making our future experience nicer.

That is the manner in which conceptions of reality can be justified... not by suggesting that our being Capable of Conceiving it gives it any kind of traction to claim to being substantive in Reality.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/20/2015 4:25:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/20/2015 9:42:46 AM, mortsdor wrote:
From what I understand arguments for god based in Modal Logic propose 'possible' worlds and then uses some premises of those supposedly possible things to argue that those things have reality....

so.. they're pretty much just as terrible as other ontological arguments.

we need to be explicit that when we say 'possible' we do not mean that it truly CAN exist... Rather that we do not know if it Does or Does Not exist.


That's not what "we" mean when we say things are "possible". who is "we"? I certainly don't. And most people who study these things certainly don't either. The vast majority of people probably don't mean that at all when they talk about possibility. I'm asking you justify reframing the semantics of "possiblity" - not just taking it as a given about what "we" really mean when we say it. Maybe that's what YOU mean, but that is a minority understanding.

when we say it COULD exist we do NOT mean that the universe/reality allows for such a thing, Rather we mean that we do not know whether it can exist... That, so far as we're concerned.. From Our limited perspective, it would seem that the universe/reality May be so as to allow such a thing.

Our deeming it "possible" does NOT give it any special sanction or grip upon actual Reality... Rather that possibility is a function of Our Own manner of understanding the universe, and the limited perspective from which we view it.

so, regardless of whatever these supposedly 'possible' things are premised upon there should be no: "It's possible, Therefore... something about reality."

No. "It's possible" doe NOT describe how the supposed thing relates to the universe, it (at best) describes how it relates to our particular perspective.... and there is no jump that launches an idea straight from how we can imagine reality being to such things actually being Substantive in reality.

The only defensible claims to Reality are limited ones which acknowledge their dependence upon the perspective from which they were derived.

Also, I would suggest, that we need Pragmatic justification to assert such Perspective-bound ideas as being the case... Not only must such assertions be recognized as being assumptions, but we should explain why we feel the need to make such perspective-bound assumptions.

This is all easily justified for by our having spontaneous feelings of pleasure and pain, and the recurrent patterns of stimuli which are associated with, and which seem to allow us to exercise control over when/what we experience.

In this manner, It is easy to justify empirically based conceptions based upon recurrent patterns as being worthy of presumption... For they seem to Work at making our future experience nicer.

That is the manner in which conceptions of reality can be justified... not by suggesting that our being Capable of Conceiving it gives it any kind of traction to claim to being substantive in Reality.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 3:11:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/19/2015 5:13:36 PM, SargonOfAkkad wrote:
There are modal logic systems which don't use possibility, so this isn't a criticism of modal logic as much as it is a criticism of modal logic systems like S5. If anything, your OP actually amounts to a defense of TRIV modal logic, which you would probably take a liking to based on your statements.

Heyo, you're back?
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2015 3:44:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think every instance you take issue with was more of a problem with possible world semantics. In your parody where you create a modal argument against Einstein for example, you argue that one could conceive of something that can go faster than the speed of light, and thus you hope to show that modal logic (or more accurately, Many-world semantics) makes no sense. However, your argument is more of a demonstration of why modal logic can be useful. If I can conceive of something that can go faster than the speed of light, then I can prove that something physically impossible is not logically impossible. You can derive 3 types of possibility from your argument:
1) Physical possibility -can happen in the actual world
2) Metaphysical possibility -could happen in an accessible world, but not the actual world. Such as faster than light travel.
3) logical possibility -anything that does not contravene a fundamental logical law, such as classical thought, it must be logically possible.
There are many different uses for this logic. Currently NASA is researching warp technology to allow faster than light travel. This is because they have identified the possibility as theoretical possibility. If they didn't have this framework to work with, they would be left with the dichotomy of possible and impossible, and they wouldn't know whether or not FTL was something that should be researched. Given the significance of the possibility of FTL technology to human civilisation, the insight into possibility given to us by modal logic is something we should actually use.

Furthermore, by attacking modal logic, you attack everything that makes it up. Including systems such as K, which is a perfectly fine proposition. Which of the systems ails you? Sargon said something about S4, but S4 is used for simplification purposes, so I'm not sure where your issue lies.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2015 8:54:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/21/2015 3:44:01 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I think every instance you take issue with was more of a problem with possible world semantics. In your parody where you create a modal argument against Einstein for example, you argue that one could conceive of something that can go faster than the speed of light, and thus you hope to show that modal logic (or more accurately, Many-world semantics) makes no sense. However, your argument is more of a demonstration of why modal logic can be useful. If I can conceive of something that can go faster than the speed of light, then I can prove that something physically impossible is not logically impossible. You can derive 3 types of possibility from your argument:
1) Physical possibility -can happen in the actual world
2) Metaphysical possibility -could happen in an accessible world, but not the actual world. Such as faster than light travel.
3) logical possibility -anything that does not contravene a fundamental logical law, such as classical thought, it must be logically possible.

From my argument only one kind of possibility can be derived. If X is possible, then X is not a conclusion necessarily true or false to whichever agent deeming it 'possible'.

There are many different uses for this logic. Currently NASA is researching warp technology to allow faster than light travel. This is because they have identified the possibility as theoretical possibility. If they didn't have this framework to work with, they would be left with the dichotomy of possible and impossible, and they wouldn't know whether or not FTL was something that should be researched.

I don't see that a metaphysical framework has made any positive contribution here. NASA appear to have come to the agreeable conclusion that Einstein's conception is not guaranteed to be true, or to the conclusion that you don't have to 'travel through space' to get from one place to another.

Given the significance of the possibility of FTL technology to human civilisation, the insight into possibility given to us by modal logic is something we should actually use.

Furthermore, by attacking modal logic, you attack everything that makes it up. Including systems such as K, which is a perfectly fine proposition. Which of the systems ails you? Sargon said something about S4, but S4 is used for simplification purposes, so I'm not sure where your issue lies.

My issue lies with the idea that 'necessary' describes anything more than a conclusion which must follow from the premises and that 'possible' describes anything more than a conclusion which is not absolutely eliminated, i.e. where the there is no necessity.