Philosophy Now Forum

Seán Moran won’t be palmed off by talk of backwards causation.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/96/Fort ... _Causation

As my jolly logic professor used to say, "Ex falso quodlibet," meaning that from a contradiction, anything follows. For example, if we accept the proposition
(1) "All knowledge is knowable"
but also accept
(2) "Knowledge of the future is impossible"
we might end up in a position of accepting
(3) "Not all knowledge is knowable"
even if we have a fairly limited account of evidential relations between events and claims to know them: the future evidence isn't there yet, we might suppose, so the knowledge can't be either.

If we go ahead with accepting (1) and (3), then tack on an 'OR clause
(4) "Clairvoyants can tell the future"
we end up proving (4) since it follows from either knowledge's knowability or non-knowlability. Look! A truth table!



From ((1)&(3))v(4) we get (4) come what may as the only false or clause is one where both disjuncts are false. From the outset, the contradiction is affirmed, however, so it will never be the case that falsity results. Logically, the contradictory nature of the clairvoyant's position makes their position strong. No?

A better way for the clairvoyant to retain their mystique, though, might be through the 'silence in golden' approach: "...if the clairvoyant says nothing, his secret predictions might come true." More importantly for the clairvoyant, whether the predictions come to pass or not, they clairvoyant can always say "I knew it!" after the fact, while smiling gnomically.

from (1) follows that we can not accept (2).
logical approach.

Hi Mark,

My playful response hinges on (1) a classical interpretation of a logical principle -- "Ex falso quodlibet" and (2) the notion of true contradictions. The notion of true contradictions is used by Graham Priest and is known as 'dialetheism.' The idea I play with from (1) and (2) is that if true contradictions are tenable, we can prove anything. In this instance, I make specific reference to knowledge of the future as that is the topic of the article. If we can and can't know all knowable things (assuming the truth of the contradiction, founded epistemologically in the idea that we need evidence for any knowledge claim, with knowledge claims for the future having no present evidence) then fortune tellers can tell the future. This is an amusing outcome as it seems to compound the sense of contradiction already at play in generating the provisional outcome. Given the pedigree of (1) and the influence of (2), moreover, it's a logical approach.

ok, thanks. i just learned some logic from wikipedia and see your point much much better now with my bad english skills.

still. it is logical, that illogical approach gives illogical answers. and i think it is logical, that (2)dialetheism approach gives (1)(3)(4)"Ex falso quodlibet".

i think that dialetheism is another word for imprecise(-ism).

"ex testimonio quodlibet".

logically
logic is cool.
But you dont think that way 'in extremis'

We as animals think 1st
AM I GOING TO DIE.

sophistry on nature of logic is what we do when we are falling asleep [or is it hot girls]
The number of STUPID PEOPLE i have met that thought they were logical is in the 10's of thousands.
[people who have =<5 books in their house]

prill [ps prill comes with inherent ]

Telling the future..
Or fortunes if you want to belittle it.

look up STOCHASTICS.
If you want to learn about non paranormal prediction.
I KNOW IT WELL FOR I HAVE SOME STOCHASTIC ABILITY
IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY.

As to 'knowing the future'?
Would be the greatest curse laid in a person.
true horror.

prill

causation is a fuzzy path. but the PATH can be predicted if not the steps.

Hjarloprillar wrote:"ex testimonio quodlibet".

logically
logic is cool.
But you dont think that way 'in extremis'

We as animals think 1st
AM I GOING TO DIE.

"We as animals think 1st AM I GOING TO DIE" is not logical thinking?

Hjarloprillar wrote:Telling the future..
Or fortunes if you want to belittle it.

look up STOCHASTICS.
If you want to learn about non paranormal prediction.
I KNOW IT WELL FOR I HAVE SOME STOCHASTIC ABILITY
IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY.

As to 'knowing the future'?
Would be the greatest curse laid in a person.
true horror.

prill

causation is a fuzzy path. but the PATH can be predicted if not the steps.

prediction would be the greatest curse laid in a person?

prediction would be the greatest curse laid in a person?
----------------------------------

Mark

pre·dict
/priˈdikt/
Say [or know] that (a specified thing) will happen in the future.

that your loved ones will perish screaming in a fire and that there is not a thing you can do to change it. for your ability is part of that future.
que sera sera
[unless you believe acausal paradox is possible]

scientific prediction would be the greatest curse laid in a person?
science is making predictions?
science is greatest curse?

Mark Question wrote:scientific prediction would be the greatest curse laid in a person?
science is making predictions?
science is greatest curse?

He is calling predictions of the future a curse, as one would perceive a result, but have no chance of changing it. I'm sorry but invoking a terrible television show from my childhood seems necessary here. It would be much like "That's So Raven" where the main character can randomly glimpse events in the future and tries her hardest to change them. However her attempts at altering the future result in her getting into the situations she initially tried to avoid.

Logan wrote:

Mark Question wrote:scientific prediction would be the greatest curse laid in a person?
science is making predictions?
science is greatest curse?

He is calling predictions of the future a curse, as one would perceive a result, but have no chance of changing it. I'm sorry but invoking a terrible television show from my childhood seems necessary here. It would be much like "That's So Raven" where the main character can randomly glimpse events in the future and tries her hardest to change them. However her attempts at altering the future result in her getting into the situations she initially tried to avoid.

that is not logical thinking. prediction does not mean a statement about the way things will happen in the future, always based on experience or knowledge.

A prediction (Latin præ-, "before," and dicere, "to say") or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on experience or knowledge.

Although guaranteed information about the future is in many cases impossible, prediction is necessary to allow plans to be made about possible developments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction

predictions are more accurate. fate is more clear. logical knowledge is not free thinking. free will is dead in a world where there is no free lunches. you do not want to see dead free will? close your eyes.

the past cannot predict the future...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

-Imp

Impenitent wrote:the past cannot predict the future...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

-Imp

why the past cannot predict the future?

it begs the question

-Imp