 |
| 
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/18/2004 2:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hey all,
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about the logic of open theism and specifically about the relationship between two different views of the future. I call these views the "settled future view" (SFV) and the "open future view" (OFV), respectively:
(SFV) The future can be exhaustively described in terms of what either "will" or "will not" happen.
(OFV) The future cannot be exhaustively described in terms of what either "will" or "will not" happen.
As some of you who have followed our discussions of "indeterminacy logic" will recall, we start with the following logical "square of opposition", which depicts logical relationships among "will" and "might" propositions:
Given the logical relations in this square, there are only three logically consistent assignments of truth values. The three possible assignments for (will, will not, might, might not) are:
(TFTF) = "It is determinately the case that S will obtains at t."
(FTFT) = "It is determinately the case that S will not obtain at t."
(FFTT) = "It is indeterminate whether S will obtain at t."
The "indeterminacy logic" that myself, Tom, Doc, and a few others have contributed to takes these three possibilities as logical primitives. What it seems to show is that the SFV is not a logical truth, but a metaphysically contingent matter.
Now I don't know of any SFV advocates who reject this square of oppositions, but I'm wondering why an SFV proponent can't reject it. Specifically, it seems to me that the SFV proponent could propose the following square of opposition:
On this square, "will" and "will not" are contradictories, so one must be true and the other false. The SFV follows immediately.
Furthermore, on this square, there are four logical possibilities for assigning truth values:
(TFTT) = "It is (causally) contingent that S will obtain at t"
(TFTF) = "It is (causally) necessary that S will obtain at t"
(FTTT) = "It is (causally) contingent that S will not obtain at t"
(FTFT) = "It is (causally) necessary that S will obtain at t"
Now, it is clear that the meaning of "will" has to be different on both squares, for it cannot both be the contrary of "will not" and the contradictory of "will not". The questions I have, which I am still thinking through, are these: (1) What is the precise nature of that difference in the meaning of "will"? (2) Is there a compelling reason that doesn't beg the question vis-á-vis the OFV/SFV debate for preferring the first square of opposition?
Looking for input.
Thanks.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/19/2004 8:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Laika
I'm confused. Either square one is wrong across the top or square two is wrong across the top.
If this square represents ONLY what will happen at time t, then the bottom one is correct, imho.
(There's no time t' necessitating "contrary-ness")
If this square is not limited to what will happen at time t, then the top one is correct, imho.
(There's a time t' necessitating "contrary-ness")
Or am I missing something, as usual?
I don't think it's that simple, Laika, for if you are right, then the SFV is true, the future is exhaustively settled, and open theism has to weaken divine omniscience from "God knows all true propositions" to "God knows all that can be known, and there are some truth propositions about the future that cannot be known."
Let me explain. If "will" and "will not" are contradictories for statements like "S will obtain at t" and "S will not obtain at t", then one or the other must be true for any state of affairs S and any future time t. So, for example, either "Bush will be reelected in 2004" or "Bush will not be reelected in 2004" is now true, irrespective of the fact that it seems to be contingent upon the free will decisions of a lot of people. Since the same is true for any S and any future time t, it follows that the future is now (and always has been) exhaustively settled. For God to be omniscient on the the classical definition, i.e., knowing all and only truths, then the open theist is forced to either abandon open theism or concede that there are truths that God does not know, which compromises the traditional understanding of omniscience.
What Doc, Tom, myself, and others have been arguing for over a year now is that open theists can affirm the full traditional understanding of omniscience, but this claim requires that the SFV be false and that the OFV is true. So we can't split the difference between the two squares and say that the first one applies for statements like "S will obtain" and the second for statements like "S will obtain at t". If the second half of your proposal is true, then the SFV is a logical truth, and the OFV is a logical falsehood.
Thanks for the input.
Alan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/19/2004 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika: Here's a simpler try: chop off the bottom of the first square. What's left represents the SFV.
Alan: Not so. The first square presents "will" and "will not" as contraries, not contradictories, which means that it is possible for both to be false simultaneously. "Contrary" in logic just means that they can't both be true, but they can both be false.
Laika: Either it will happen at t or it won't (both of them being false is not possible).
Alan: This is what the SFV holds, and what the OFV rejects. Again, if you want to say this, fine, but it forces you to give up either open theism or the traditional view of divine omniscience.
I don't think either has to be given up because I think it is possible for both "S will obtain at t" and "S will not obtain at t" to be false. Both are false when "S might and might not obtain at t", i.e., when the future is unsettled with respect to S's obtaining at t.
Regards,
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
| 30 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|