Evidence? Quantum physics disagrees with you.
Evidence?Free Will is not natural.
Evidence?Any minutest sliver of Free Will is not natural.
Yes, modal logic. Modal logic is related to math but is not a branch of it.When you say "necessary in the logical meaning of necessity" are you referring to formal logic, now a branch of mathematics?
Why, who else can't spell?
If you don't have any self control it isn't my job rein you in.But don't let me interfere with your content-free trolling.
That sounds like just my sort of thing, you don't know where I might find a meaningful discussion, do you?Message boards are set up precisely so that trolls can destroy meaningful discussion.
I hope you don't mind that I restored the full quote plus some clarification.
I see you're one of those quick to label fellas.davidm wrote: ↑Wed May 31, 2017 4:24 pmYou were responding to my "assertion" that the fixity of the past does not imply the necessity of the past. So you think that all past, present and future contingent events are actually necessary events? That my eating eggs yesterday for breakfast has the same logical status as a triangle having three sides?
And you even say you have evidence for this astounding claim, which violates elementary logic?
[/quote]Evidence? Quantum physics disagrees with you.Determinism is inseparable from nature.
By definition God or alternatively nature are the only things that are causes of themselves. Because Free Will is partly defined as an attribute of men Free Will is neither God nor nature.Evidence?Free Will is not natural.
Please see my answer above.Evidence?Any minutest sliver of Free Will is not natural.
[/quote]Yes, modal logic. Modal logic is related to math but is not a branch of it.When you say "necessary in the logical meaning of necessity" are you referring to formal logic, now a branch of mathematics?
By definition God or alternatively nature are the only things that are causes of themselves. Because Free Will is partly defined as an attribute of men Free Will is neither God nor nature.
I always thought logic was a branch of philosophy.Belinda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:44 am Davidm wrote:
It was separate. It's now a branch of maths. A minor point anyway which we can overlook.Yes, modal logic. Modal logic is related to math but is not a branch of it.When you say "necessary in the logical meaning of necessity" are you referring to formal logic, now a branch of mathematics?
It is; but it's also "mathematical" in that it substitutes a symbol system for predications of various kinds, then moves those symbols around in a quasi-mathematical way.
Where did I “label” you in the above? Nowhere, of course.
Right. This is just agreeing with what I wrote about your position — that you think that there are no contingent truths, only necessary ones — and that eating eggs for breakfast has the same logical status as a triangle having three sides. Is my saying this about you, what you mean by my “labeling” you? Because if so, the “label” is absolutely correct (though it’s not a “label” — it’s just an accurate summary of what you claim). You believe something that is ridiculous on the face of it, and that no logician would endorse. Indeed, even hard determinists don’t believe that all are acts are logically necessary.Whatever you do, at the moment of doing, is what you have to do. Whatever you did was what you had to do. If you had to change your mind at the last moment from what you intended to do, then that’s part of the deciding process, and not the actual physical movement, or lack of physical movement, that defines doing.
That you ate eggs for breakfast yesterday meant that you had to eat eggs for breakfast. True, there are many things that are available to eat for breakfast, but at the moment of action, you had to eat eggs. Secondary to this is all the things that you didn’t have to eat, such as Cheerios!
When you fully realize that what you are doing in the present is what you must do, and that you have no choice about that, then you are no longer confused. Then you’re ready for an unconflicted consideration of the future that doesn’t put such an emphasis on a wishin and a hopin.
Only in your dreams.Thus, the original comment that you correctly identified as profound. I guess you’re just lucky that attention turned to this matter before you got yourself too lost.
But quantum physics does "govern" subataomic particles -- yielding indeterminism, not determinism. But I'm curious why you think laws "govern" the universe. How do these "laws" do that?
Only agent-causal libertarians believe in self-caused motivations and actions. The compatibilist does not believe this.By definition God or alternatively nature are the only things that are causes of themselves. Because Free Will is partly defined as an attribute of men Free Will is neither God nor nature.
It's not branch of math. Formal symbolic logic is a branch of philosophy. But as you say, it's a minor point and not relevant to the larger discussion.It was separate. It's now a branch of maths. A minor point anyway which we can overlook.
I think it's instructive that Formal Symbolic Logic is taught by Philosophy professors, not Math professors.
The Laws of the Universe that science has come up with are descriptive not prescriptive. The Universe is what it is and humans write laws based on what they observe, the Laws do not control the Universe.
bold-face mine.Probably the biggest difference between mathematical logic and general logic(logic for philosophy) is that mathematical logic is essentially strictly concerned with deductive logic. A good course on logic for a philosophy program should cover deductive, inductive, abductive, meta-logic, and different logical systems(belief logic, modal logic, etc.). Also, mathematical logic would probably look at examples of mathematical proofs, whereas logic for philosophy will cover a wide range of scenarios and thought experiments.
