I had said simply said this, which you never addressed — Terrapin Station
Yes, I did address it. You didn't reply to my comment about it. Maybe you missed it. — Pierre-Normand
Otherwise, how exactly does that amount to mixing anything up, because all I did was talk about what they do and do not believe? — Terrapin Station
Wait, in the situation I'm presenting, what are you claiming the person believes is nomologically possible? — Terrapin Station
Actually this is a better question: why wouldn't epistemic possibility be beliefs about nomological possibility? I'm not at all convinced that it's coherent to say that it's anything other than that. — Terrapin Station
I'm unsure why anyone would think that the only sorts of propositions which, for all one knows, might be true, are complex propositions regarding the nomological possibilities of basic propositions. — Pierre-Normand
What in the world does that have to do with what I asked?
I didn't say anything about the only sorts of propositions that might be true. In fact, I didn't say anything about propositions or truth whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about "complex" versus "basic" propositions. — Terrapin Station
Are you not familiar with the idea that the contents of beliefs are propositions? — Pierre-Normand
It's not as if all beliefs are about possibility. — Terrapin Station
What would be the grounds for a claim that a proposition like "There is a possibility that x" has a structure like "(NP(A)" (or EP(A) or EP(NP)A) or whatever)? — Terrapin Station
I think I see what you are getting at. Let's compare life to a maze. To me, I am walking through the maze, constrained by the walls, at the same time making limited choices whether to stop or go on. The exit point is pre-determined, lets' say I have some control over how long I take to get there.
This, to me is determinism + free choice. Compatibilist. This may be an imperfect example, but let's use it for now. — FreeEmotion
Indeed, this it's how religious people think of responsibility, God, and life. Heaven is their destination picked for them by God and it matters naught how many people they let, steak, cheat, and even kill along the way (maybe kill is not allowed). — Rich
This is insulting to the religious person, even to the more Calvinistic Christians I know. Some religious folk are compatibilists; they think responsibility holds even if determinism is true. There are those who are free will libertarian as well, so they think that determinism is not true and they effectively choose their fate. Neither believes one can break the laws of their religion and get away with it. They are not fatalists about salvation. A person who murders, cheats, and steals will not go into heaven, even from a Calvinist perspective. — Chany
I think I see what you are getting at. Let's compare life to a maze. To me, I am walking through the maze, constrained by the walls, at the same time making limited choices whether to stop or go on. The exit point is pre-determined, lets' say I have some control over how long I take to get there.
This, to me is determinism + free choice. Compatibilist. This may be an imperfect example, but let's use it for now. — FreeEmotion
Again, it's not at all plausible to me that beliefs about possibility are beliefs about something other than whether an event can metaphysically obtain.
At least where one is using the term "possibility" in anything like its conventional sense. — Terrapin Station
It gets complicated since God has already decided and has the final say. — Rich
But not too worry, it's better than determinism that has us all killing each other because some gene it's obsessed with surviving. — Rich
Now, for the determinist, I make no choices, its all pre-programmed as if I am a robot. — FreeEmotion
For those who say there is free will, I am not sure which of the following apply ( broadly, there are different definitions of free will).
1. The maze exists only in my field of view. What is beyond is non-existent
2. The maze exists within my field of view and outside. The maze changes its shape and its exit point depending on my choices
3. There is no God or other being who can view the maze journey from all or any point in time, and therefore know which path I would take, or finally took, or am going to take, assuming He is viewing something real. — FreeEmotion
Re free will (aka libertarianism (with respect to will)), your (2) is closest.
Re your (3), one can believe that God exists (I personally do not--I'm an atheist, but one can believe God exists). And many people see free will as compatible with God's omniscience because they see knowledge as only being about what actually obtains, including natural laws, if one believes they obtain, and this gives God some predictive powers. But free will isn't part of natural law in this view, and God can't know what you'll decide prior to you deciding it. That's not the only approach to this issue in the context of religious belief, obviously, but it is one popular approach. — Terrapin Station
In my view that explanation is just compounding problems (note that my comments below are in the context of what's functionally going on, with respect to what's coherent or not, re conventional uses if terms):
* "Possible worlds" talk doesn't make sense except as talk about what is metaphysically possible in the actual world (which for a determinist is only one thing for each "branching point" so to speak . . . also, I see logical possibility as a subset of what's metaphysically possible, although determinists would have to say that it's the subset of things that are possible to non-contradictorily imagine; that, however, is still a subset of metaphysical possibility.) — Terrapin Station
* I don't know if you intended them to, but alethic or temporal possibility wouldn't refer to anything other than metaphysical possibility (they'd just be limiting the consideration to metaphysical possibility re truth-value judgments or changes that obtain relative to something)
* "Possible worlds as semantic models" -- we can note that the semantic models that individuals happen to possess (meaning is subjective and only obtains insofar as individuals actually think it) are actualized possibilities, but this is still metaphysical possibility (and rob a deterministic actualized (or to-be-actualized possibilities) are the only possibilities there are)
* The idea of "subjective probabilities" is just nonsense--if there are probabilities and that's not just an illusion, that's going to be a name that picks out some objective relational feature(s) of the world
* It's fine to note that we can be ignorant about which possibility obtains, where we believe that prior to something obtaining, there is more than one possibility, but if we're determinists we do not believe this; we believe that there is only one thing that's a possibility prior to each "branching point,' and our ignorance is about which thing was possible. Thus (a) ignorance isn't the same thing as some sense of possibility, and (b) this is not a different sense of possibility than metaphysical possibility; we're merely talking about our ignorance and beliefs re metaphysical possibility.
* Mathematics (and logic) are simply languages that report our subjective understanding of contingent relations, as they are thought about on the most abstract level, and
* Truth-value is a judgement about the relation of a proposition to something else (the exact something else being whatever the individual believes to be the pertinent relational consideration (for the context at hand). That could be their perception of the external world, or consistency with their stock of previously adjudged propositions, or usefulness per their judgment, etc.)
What's logically possible is whatever isn't ruled out by the laws of formal logic alone. — Pierre-Normand
I wouldn't say that there are any laws of formal logic.
There are basically language games that are set up as conventions re different species of logics, where logic, as I had said, is a subjective linguistic reporting of how individuals think about relations on the most abstract level. — Terrapin Station
I am usure how this further characterization of logic explains the claim that you made. — Pierre-Normand
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.