Possibility and Necessity: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Possibility and Necessity » Possibility and Necessity

Page: 1 2

Possibility and Necessity

SCB
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Seattle
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 07/28/06 - 08:23 PM: Subject: Possibility and Necessity	#1
I am wondering what you people think about modality in general. Could it really be that things could have been different? Even if causal determinism is not true, it still seems true that the future can only be in one possible way. Do you think that possibility is even a coherent concept? This is where I tend to lean on this issue. For to say that I could of had a twin brother is to make a claim about a state of affairs that never happened. Or do you think that the concept of possibility is brute, that it is something we can't give an account of, but nevertheless it is something that we know.

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Women’s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 07/28/06 - 09:28 PM:	#2
Like almost all (if not all) words and ideas, possibility needs context to have a fully defined meaning. As non-omniscient conscious humans we lack the ability to know and calculate all the factors of the universe. So, even if the universe follows the rules of causal determinism, there are still variables created by our lack of knowledge. Analogously, mathematics is bind by stoic rules, but without all the information in an equation (i.e. if there's variables), then there can be multiple possibilities to us. Possibility is a matter of the relation between the physical universe and perspective. SCB wrote: For to say that I could of had a twin brother is to make a claim about a state of affairs that never happened. That's just semantics. The phrase "could of" means, that it was possible for that to happen, if the causal state of affairs had been different. That's not the same as saying that it was possible if all things had been the same. You could say that possibility is an illusion (similar to how people say free-will is an illusion based on causal determinism). However, that ignores the meaning of the word possibility, as it is used. If we start creating impractical and idealistic definitions of words/symbols, then of course they won't exist in a strict realistic sense. -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

pbeg1
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2005
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 122

Posted 07/28/06 - 10:11 PM:	#3
------------------------------------------SEE HISTORY------------------------------------------ Hang ups are few, the sea now stills......( the beginning of the end ) Multitudes of lone and lapping rollers Curl and Clap upsettled Leeving mere traces Quaint and quitsome Lacings of Foam & Lather..... Awll seams to flux under here And placidness swayze deep The wash reseedeth to Its brineful hinge The sea belly Now stills As hang- Ups be- Come Few: ..................immense ..................silent ..................what comes, will come Off the hinge and behind, the sea is Loose, flat, and free-born with flux. Coming or going----------who can say?...... ( the end of the beginning ) History folllows neither a set script nor is pregnant with the kind of possibility that would inexorably change it. Lee Harvey Oswald was at once a man of his " own " time yet historically determined in his character and beliefs. His actions changed American---and perhaps even world history--but not on a scale that would dislodge it from the track it was, and is still on. if one shot a ten guage shotgun from the surf-board one was on into the wave one was riding would it alter the course of the wave? On the individual scale--despite the larger historical wave that carries us--and in someway determines our character---you still have the choice of riding that wave in the way that you see fit, and in the way that best fits you. But to do this I suggest that you treat the whole enterprise gently, artfully, and creatively to get the most out of your unique ride. But to just sit there in open water and continually ask do I control the board or does the wave control the board---the whole nonsensical and ultimately futile question of free will...OR determism--just ain't gonn'a get it done in terms of just living your life. Cheers.

SCB
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Seattle
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 07/28/06 - 11:20 PM:	#4
"You're attempting to submit a post that appears to ignore basic rules of the English language. Since Philosophy Forums strives for high standards, continuing to submit may result in your being banned. PF requires you to make an effort to use proper English, since people who don't make that effort rarely put any effort into developing their thoughts either. If you're sure that this is a false positive, you may click the button below to force the post through." I don't know what this is about. I sent this through a Microsoft Word check for spelling and grammer before I submitted it, and everything came out ok. If someone can point out grammatical errors in this post, please inform me and I will correct them. I do not want to be banned. pbeg1, this is not a thread about fatalism. Floyd wrote: Like almost all (if not all) words and ideas, possibility needs context to have a fully defined meaning. As non-omniscient conscious humans we lack the ability to know and calculate all the factors of the universe. So, even if the universe follows the rules of causal determinism, there are still variables created by our lack of knowledge. Analogously, mathematics is bind by stoic rules, but without all the information in an equation (i.e. if there's variables), then there can be multiple possibilities to us. Possibility is a matter of the relation between the physical universe and perspective. I should have been more clear in my initial post. Suppose that something happens due to some probability. In such a case it could be said that a different outcome could have been brought about. But there is still a deeper sense in which things may not have been otherwise in such a scenario. For any possible event in history, something either happens or it won't--and for the events that do happen, it cannot be said that they did not happen. So, even a probabilistic occurence could be determined in this sense. (This isn't really the point of the thread, of which I will I will adress below. It actually is intended to support my claims on the incoherency of modality.) That's just semantics. The phrase "could of" means, that it was possible for that to happen, if the causal state of affairs had been different. That's not the same as saying that it was possible if all things had been the same. Of course, I know that what it means to say that an event could have happened is to say that if the proper causal antecedents were in place, that it would have happened. You could say that possibility is an illusion (similar to how people say free-will is an illusion based on causal determinism). However, that ignores the meaning of the word possibility, as it is used. If we start creating impractical and idealistic definitions of words/symbols, then of course they won't exist in a strict realistic sense. -Floyd I am referring to possibility in a deeper sense. Suppose that we analyze a certain probabilistic event and we come to the conclusion that another result could have obtained. What I am looking for is what it means to say that it could have (I am not concerned with what circumstances in this world must be in place). For instance, David Lewis says that what it means for something to be possible is that there is a world at which it occurs. Edited by SCB on 07/29/06 - 12:06 AM. Reason: Spelling correction; replacing a wrongly placed word

Floyd
Cool

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Dec 16, 2003
Total Topics: 31
Total Posts: 1964

Last Blog: Women’s Pay Key to Child Poverty

Posted 07/29/06 - 12:05 AM:	#5
SCB wrote: I am referring to probability in a deeper sense. Suppose that we analyze a certain probabilistic event and we come to the conclusion that another result could have obtained. What I am looking for is what it means to say that it could have (I am not concerned with what circumstances in this world must be in place). For instance, David Lewis says that what it means for something to be possible is that there is a world at which it occurs. I don't claim to have a firm understanding of Modal Realism, but I don't see any reason to assume that possible worlds really exist. I think the use of the idea of hypothetical/metaphorical 'possible worlds' facilitates theoretical discussion of modality, but I see no evidence of the real existence of these "worlds". However, I assume even a modal realist like David Lewis would base the existence of a possible world on the possibility of a proposition having a different truth value, rather than vice versa. To say that another result could have obtained, is simply to say that if causal factors had been differant, that could have changed. The point of using 'possible worlds' to describe this is that many possibilities could have happened. So, when discussing one factor, we want to isolate that factor by creating a specific hypothetical world in which only that factor is differant. For example, if I say, "I could have never been born." We might want to look at that in a 'possible world' in which everything else had happened the same, except I hadn't been born. The reason for making this specification is that there are many 'possible worlds' in which I wouldn't have been born (e.g. one in which my mother had never been born). Use of 'possible worlds' is just a tool. The possible worlds are simply hypothetical. (If I understand modal realism correctly, modal realists like David Lewis believe these "possible worlds" really exist.) -Floyd
Short and to the point. \| Online Philosophy Club \| Book & Reading Forums \| My Philosophy Articles "Only the descent into the hell of self-knowledge can pave the way to godliness." ~Immanuel Kant

Augustinian
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 20, 2004
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 31

Posted 07/29/06 - 08:30 AM:	#6
SCB wrote: "Suppose that something happens due to some probability. In such a case it could be said that a different outcome could have been brought about. But there is still a deeper sense in which things may not have been otherwise in such a scenario. For any possible event in history, something either happens or it won't--and for the events that do happen, it cannot be said that they did not happen. Your intuitions here are both common, and easy to account for. And they don't require denying that things genuinely could have been other than they are in fact To infer from your: (1) "...for the events that do happen, it cannot be said that they did not happen" that (2) It cannot be that they did not happen commits a fairly well known modal fallacy; that of conflating the necessity of the consequence with the necessity of the consequent. Here is a good article to reflect on that will allow you to understand your modal intuitions on this matter a little better. http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com/posts/1... (be sure to click the "(show)" tag to see the whole article Augustinian

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 1529

Posted 07/29/06 - 08:33 AM:	#7
SCB wrote: I don't know what this is about. I sent this through a Microsoft Word check for spelling and grammer before I submitted it, and everything came out ok. If someone can point out grammatical errors in this post, please inform me and I will correct them. I do not want to be banned. pbeg1, this is not a thread about fatalism. This happens to me once in a while, too. I suspect it's something trivial such as because the grammar/usage checker, whatever it is doesn't think it's "proper form" to start a post with a lowercase letter as in: "pbeg1 ..."??? Just a guess.
OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

SCB
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Location: Seattle
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 17

Posted 07/29/06 - 03:17 PM:	#8
Floyd wrote: I don't claim to have a firm understanding of Modal Realism, but I don't see any reason to assume that possible worlds really exist. I think the use of the idea of hypothetical/metaphorical 'possible worlds' facilitates theoretical discussion of modality, but I see no evidence of the real existence of these "worlds". However, I assume even a modal realist like David Lewis would base the existence of a possible world on the possibility of a proposition having a different truth value, rather than vice versa. To say that another result could have obtained, is simply to say that if causal factors had been differant, that could have changed. The point of using 'possible worlds' to describe this is that many possibilities could have happened. So, when discussing one factor, we want to isolate that factor by creating a specific hypothetical world in which only that factor is differant. For example, if I say, "I could have never been born." We might want to look at that in a 'possible world' in which everything else had happened the same, except I hadn't been born. The reason for making this specification is that there are many 'possible worlds' in which I wouldn't have been born (e.g. one in which my mother had never been born). Use of 'possible worlds' is just a tool. The possible worlds are simply hypothetical. (If I understand modal realism correctly, modal realists like David Lewis believe these "possible worlds" really exist.) -Floyd Of course, what determines the distribution of events, or truths, across worlds will depend on one's views of metaphysics, logic, and epistemology--but these are separate matters. It is just the notion of a "possible world" that is puzzling. Lewis just gives one analysis, although I am not sure what the most prominent views are concerning possibility. They could also be analyzed, for instance, as linguistic entities: a possible world is a maximally consistent set of sentences. Augustinian wrote: To infer from your: (1) "...for the events that do happen, it cannot be said that they did not happen" that (2) It cannot be that they did not happen commits a fairly well known modal fallacy; that of conflating the necessity of the consequence with the necessity of the consequent. Thanks for pointing that out. I made the mistake of building necessity into my claim. Richard Taylor, in his "Metaphysics," gives an argument for logical determinism based on the law of the excluded middle. When he answers an objection that is similar to the one you gave me, he says that it only argues for unavoidability, and not for necessity, hence he avoids the fallacy in question. I should not use have used it in the way that I did, to support a claim that there is no such thing as possibility and necessity.

pbeg1
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2005
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 122

Posted 07/29/06 - 04:35 PM:	#9
Science fiction--as there's no evidenciary, epistemic, or ontological basis for having a legitimate ( philosophical ) discussion about it. It couches itself in legitimacy with its bold tiltle only--Modal Realism--but when one looks just behind its title one finds the whole subject best belongs to The Quantum Mechanics Ministry Of Silly Walks. And SCB, I'll will match my my telling absurdisms with your cloudy formalisms any day of the week, assuming that is, that you don't wander off into some other possible world whose Monday is OUR tuesday! Edited by pbeg1 on 07/29/06 - 04:40 PM. Reason: spelling

pbeg1
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2005
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 122

Posted 07/29/06 - 05:55 PM:	#10
I've read enough about it to know that it is not worthy of my attention. But you be the judge--a search engine is just a click away.

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.