If there will be a sea battle tomorrow, and someone says "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" then that sentence is true, even before the sea battle occurs. But given that the sentence is true, the sea battle could not fail to take place. This argument can be rejected by denying that predictions about the future have to be true or false when they are made - ie, rejecting bivalence for sentences about the future. In other words, if there is a fork in the road, it can be said you will go left or you will go right. So;
1) There exist now propositions about everything that might happen in the future.
2) Every proposition is either true or else false.
3) If you accept statements 1) and 2), then there exists now a set of true propositions that, taken together, correctly predict everything that will happen in the future.
4) If there exists now a set of true propositions that, taken together, correctly predict everything that will happen in the future, then whatever will happen in the future is already unavoidable.
2007-03-08
11:54:41
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Philosophy