0
   

We can't talk about what would be, only what is.

 
 
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 01:32 pm
How can we ever talk about what would be when we must start off by assuming something that's false? A false statement P implies anything, as the last two rows of the truth table for logical implication show.

P.......Q.......P->Q
T.......T..........T
T.......F..........F
F.......T..........T
F.......F..........T

So then, if we talk about the world as it would be, and not as it is, we find that everything would happen. But everything can't happen. That's logically impossible. This means that it's logically impossible for the world to be in any other state other than the one it is in.

For example, I'm not driving to the store. But if I were, I'd also be swimming, since a conditional statement with a false hypothesis is always true. But I can't drive to the store and swim at the same time! To talk about what would be the case implies a contradiction, and therefore I can never talk about what would be the case. I can only talk about what is the case.

What do you think about this? If you disagree, find the flaw in my argument.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,402 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  0  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 03:40 pm
@browser32,
...if a given X extension, on which you speculate on what could become the case, in its limited contextual frame of reasoning, does n´t present any contradiction, either internal, nor with a similar relative limitedly extended observation done in the past, then we can accept that there´s no reason to positively assume you can´t speculatively talk about it, as an compared proportional example on what can come to happen based on the given previous descriptive models, mind yourself´s relative in scope and function, presented in the past which do end up fitting the relative extension of the hypothesis proposed ...however one needs to clarify that the speculative possible open frames for the future are not good for confronting the past or the present...and why ?...to my view it is the case that such models and relative scopes cannot ever superimpose themselves and substitute previous or actual ongoing occurrences, which again mind yourself s, did happen to be the case and are absolutely contrary to a proponent formulated hypothesis on which we have no good final grounds to substantiate and are clearly contradicted by experience and observation, even if intended as parallel universes unfolding possibility´s...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 03:56 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
On the nature of speculation, in resume :
...from a limited in scope observation in the past a perfectly fitting limited in scope proponent possibility in the future...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 04:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...think on the classical comparison between Newton´s/Einstein models for gravity...it is not the case that Newton´s model does not fit the data, but rather that its lesser resolution lacks in depth by comparison...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2011 10:57 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
(the focus of this post is against agency in the subject, or simply put against the idea of choice...hope it helps)

...it is not the case that I could have done otherwise, although it is the case that tomorrow I can do allot of things...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 12:05 am
@browser32,
The "flaws" in your argument are:
1. You are confusing the word "then" as in the logical IF-THEN with the the psychological "then" implying time.
2. There are ontological issue about the word "is" regarding its covert predictive status.

Note that the mathematical foundation underpinning Truth Tables is static set theory, not the dynamics of what we call "reality". In short, logic is (merely) a sub-topic of general semantics
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 12:16 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...thus meaning that my relative in scope analysis on what the future will bring can fit the data partially once it lacks sufficient depth or resolution to establish a clear contradiction with what must happen...if valid is valid not because is right but because it does not address any known active contradictory element in between past observations and the speculative frame proposed for the future...its "visual range" is not contradictory with what is perceived from past previous examples also limited account on events...its validity imply´s a perfectly relative fitting on what is asked and what can be answered in such question...we tend to think on questions as open game but in fact they are n´t, they do meant meaning in the asking and such meaning is relative to the actual knowledge present at the time they are proposed...what truly happens which does confuse a correct attempt on the problem is that often while or knowledge progresses we use the same question to mean different things...the question externally is the same but as we go its meaning internally progresses on what is actually asked...
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 12:22 am
@fresco,
...analysis on dynamics can be presented in a statical form...
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 01:01 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
...analysis on dynamics can be presented in a statical form...


You are begging the question. The problem word here is "can". The ontogical arguments raise the issue of whether "can" is to be replaced by "should".
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 06:37 am
@fresco,
...rather what can or cannot, what should or should not...necessity cannot be established without knowing what we are talking about...the word here as in any ontological matter is nature...in the case the nature of epistemic processes...throwing dynamics on the air does n´t ad or subtract a bit on the problem !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 06:48 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...in fact I did addressed the matter better and deeper then anyone else around by clarifying the relative meaning of "can" while contextualizing the correct place of "should"...

...whatever it is the case "should".
(there´s no other better criteria then the fact that it did happen...)
...whatever "can" be the case is a relative in scope assessment upon a relative in scope possible "event"..."can" applies precisely because there is no sufficient data to establish a "should"....although it might seem so, what it asks is not certainty but rather coherence !
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2011 07:01 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
...now given previous examples on sheer stupidity some are probably wondering what is a "relative in scope event"...
...a "relative in scope event" refers to a relative description or conception fitting the data to an extent (a functional description)...such extent of what is asked to fit should match !
0 Replies
 
Ding an Sich
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Sep, 2011 07:15 am
@browser32,
browser32 wrote:

How can we ever talk about what would be when we must start off by assuming something that's false? A false statement P implies anything, as the last two rows of the truth table for logical implication show.

P.......Q.......P->Q
T.......T..........T
T.......F..........F
F.......T..........T
F.......F..........T

So then, if we talk about the world as it would be, and not as it is, we find that everything would happen. But everything can't happen. That's logically impossible. This means that it's logically impossible for the world to be in any other state other than the one it is in.

For example, I'm not driving to the store. But if I were, I'd also be swimming, since a conditional statement with a false hypothesis is always true. But I can't drive to the store and swim at the same time! To talk about what would be the case implies a contradiction, and therefore I can never talk about what would be the case. I can only talk about what is the case.

What do you think about this? If you disagree, find the flaw in my argument.



Disregarding the tangents from Fil, we can solve the problem quite easily.
The first flaw is that a false statement does not entail anything. That is what a contradiction does. A false atomic statement entails that its negation is true in FOPL. A contradiction can entail anything.

Also, your example is pretty bad. The statement, "If I am driving, then I am swimming" does not entail a contradiction, not in the least (and this can be demonstrated if you translate the statement into a logical syntax). Perhaps it is physically impossible for me to do both, but it is not logically impossible.

I will not get into possible worlds here. However, there seems to be recurring problems in your line of reasoning:

1) You confuse logic with experience.
and
2) You do not understand how false statements and contradictions work.

Think about it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

use of would to menton past - Question by parthachakraborty
 
  1. Forums
  2. » We can't talk about what would be, only what is.
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/18/2019 at 12:40:44