A contingent truth means that even when you are convinced it is true right now you can imagine a situation where it isn't — khaled
Can be interpreted to mean whatever is conceivable is metaphysically possible not that they are one and the same. — khaled
How about the rest of my post? You know, where the bulk of the arguments against you lie. — khaled
we can easily imagine sums equalling numbers distinct from those they actually equal
— Bartricks
What we can imagine is someone making a calculation mistake. That's not the same as imagining that 3x18 = 58. Let's make it a bit simpler. 1 + 1 = 2. 1 + 1 = 2 is true no matter what because it's a definition. In the same way that "Married bachelors don't exist" is always true by definition.
You're saying something akin to: "One can forget the definition of bachelor for a moment and thus married bachelors can exist". In this case and the 3x18 case, it's not that someone can conceive of 3x18 =58 or of a married bachelor, it's that someone made a mistake. That's all you can imagine: someone making a mistake and forgetting the definitions.
In other words:
"1 + 1 = 2" is a necessary truth
"When I calculate 1 + 1 I get the sum of 2" is a contingent truth
Take your own existence. Can you imagine not existing? No.
— Bartricks
I can easily imagine a world in which I don't exist which makes me existing in this world a contingent truth. I cannot imagine the "experience of not existing" if that's what you're asking but that is not even a coherent concept. — khaled
Are you saying that what it means to say that a proposition is necessarily true is that it is true 'by definition'? — Bartricks
I am arguing we cannot imagine 3x18 being 58 and that I CAN easily imagine a world in which I don't exist. You claimed the opposite in both cases. — khaled
All I can do is imagine my body not existing. — Bartricks
People would not make mistakes in mental arithmetic if they were incapable of imagining the sum equally something it did not, in fact equal. — Bartricks
Anyway, it does seem from the above that you are now identifying 'necessarily true' with 'true by definition'. Is that right? — Bartricks
So, what I propose is that there are no such things as either necessary truths or contingent truths. There are just truths. There are not two categories of truth. There are just truths and that's that. — Bartricks
Isn't that exactly what a "world without you in it" means? You either just lack imagination or you're being disingenuous — khaled
When people make a mistake in arithmetic they are forgetting a definition or a rule somewhere. — khaled
literally just answered this. Yes. Though I don't think there is much point in moving on when we disagree on something as basic as "can you imagine 3x18 equalling 58" — khaled
To deny or negate a proposition that's a necessary truth will lead to a contradiction in all possible worlds. — TheMadFool
I do not know what that means. To be clear, I accept that it is true that a true proposition is not also false (the law of non-contradiction). But I do not think that it is 'necessarily' true that a true proposition is not also false. Or at least, I do not yet know what 'necessarily' true means beyond just 'true'.
Talk of possible worlds is really no help here at all, for the notion of 'possible' is precisely what's at issue.
Talk of possible worlds is just a colourful way of saying 'metaphysically possible'.
For example, say I want to know what 'cheese' is, and you say 'cheese is fromage'. Well, ok, but I'm non the wiser for all you've done is given me another word to refer to the same thing.
It seems to me that this, at best, is what talk of 'possible worlds' does, if that.
I mean, what is a possible world? An actual place? Or just an imaginary one? — Bartricks
but I seem unable to imagine that 'I' - the one doing the imagining - does not exist. — Bartricks
the simple fact is they often imagine — Bartricks
'Inconceivably false' and 'true by definition' are not the same — Bartricks
That's true of all words. So if 'necessarily true' just means 'true by definition' then 'necessarily true' doesn't tell us anything more about the nature of reality than just 'true' would. — Bartricks
So you’re trying to imagine the experience of not existing? That’s an incoherent concept. Of course you would not be able to imagine that, that’s like trying to imagine a square circle. If your body doesn’t exist the “I” (probably) won’t exist but it pointless to try to imagine what that would “feel like” — khaled
I can’t think of an example of something that is inconceivably false that is not true by definition or vice versa. Though that could just be a lack of imagination. Care to provide an example? — khaled
Yes it does, because you can substitute the meanings of the words in. For example: a married bachelor cannot exist can be translated to: A married unmarried man cannot exist. Which is obviously true and will remain true regardless of whatever word you use to encapsulate “unmarried man”. — khaled
If you are asking what I think 'metaphysically' impossible, or 'metaphysically' possible mean, then I do not know. That's my whole point. I think they do not describe real features of the world. And I think we can dispense with them and still do fine in terms of reasoning about things, for we can dispense with them and not find ourselves having to affirm contradictions.
We can still say a proposition is 'necessarily' true, but now the term will be functioning expressively - it will express our conviction that it is actually true, rather than saying something special about the proposition itself. That is how the word typically functions in everyday life.
But the idea that necessity and contingency are real features of the world, as opposed to expressions of conviction or doubt (and such like) is, I think, false. — Bartricks
Yes, er, that's MY point - I cannot conceive of not existing. I cannot imagine it — Bartricks
For the proposition "Bartricks exists" is one that I cannot conceive of being false, — Bartricks
first say that you can conceive of it, and now you say that it is impossible to conceive of it. — Bartricks
This proposition "Khaled exists" is, for you, a proposition you cannot conceive to be false, yes? — Bartricks
But the definition of a term - and thus what you can substitute one word for - are not necessary truths. — Bartricks
Under what conditions do propositions deserve our convictions or our doubts? — TheMadFool
You CAN imagine a world in which the collection of molecules known as your body doesn’t exist correct? Therefore your body existing is a contingent truth. You’re trying to imagine the “experience of not existing” which is not a coherent concept so of course you’d fail. — khaled
Really? You cannot imagine a world in which your parents never met? — khaled
Maybe actually read what I’m saying. — khaled
However you swap around the terms and definitions “a married unmarried man cannot exist” will remain true. When someone says “true by definition” It usually means “if you substitute the definition in it will be clear that the statement is true” which is exactly what I mean. — khaled
When Reason herself seems either to express a conviction that they are true, or a doubt about the matter, or seems to favour 'us' being doubtful about the truth of the proposition in question (given how we have acquired it). — Bartricks
Yes, of course I can imagine my body not existing. — Bartricks
my parents created my body, not my self. — Bartricks
No, first "a married unmarried man cannot exist" is not true if the 'cannot' means 'necessarily cannot', for it is by convention - and thus not necessary - that 'unmarried' means 'not married'. — Bartricks
And if you agree that 'necessarily true' adds nothing to 'true' (and that this is also true of contingently true') then you agree with me. — Bartricks
it seems absurd to think that our imaginations place limits on reality and vice versa. — Bartricks
two quite different views that you vacillate between. — Bartricks
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.