Possibility in the Actual World
Author(s) -
Douglas J. Webb
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
auslegung a journal of philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2376-6727
pISSN - 0733-4311
DOI - 10.17161/ajp.1808.9506
Subject(s) - negation , predicate (mathematical logic) , test (biology) , law of excluded middle , set (abstract data type) , negation as failure , scoring rule , mathematics , epistemology , philosophy , linguistics , computer science , artificial intelligence , statistics , autoepistemic logic , paleontology , multimodal logic , description logic , biology , programming language
If one affirms an unrestricted law of bivalence, then there is a set of present truths that captures everything about the future. To begin, let me explain and briefly criticize (the affirmation of) this law. By 'unrestricted bivalence', I mean the common philosophical position that all propositions are either true or false (a.k.a. not true) including propositions about the future, and all the while ignoring the distinction between internal and external negation. By 'external negation', I mean the negation of an (entire) claim, and by 'internal negation', I mean a claim with a negative predicate. For example, // is not the case that I will score a 1600 the next time I take the SAT test is an external negation; whereas I will not score a 1600 the next time I take the SAT test is an internal negation. The difference between the two claims can be seen as follows: if it is presently undetermined whether or not I score a 1600 the next time I take the SAT test (i.e. my scoring 1600 is consistent with all present truths and my not scoring a 1600 is also consistent with all present truths), then / will score a 1600 the next time I take the SAT test is false but so is / will not score a 1600 the next time I take the SAT test. If it is genuinely undetermined whether or not I will score a 1600, the claim that I will achieve that score is false and so is the claim that I will not achieve that score. In other words, in the scenario just described // is not the case that I will score a 1600 the next time 1 take the SAT test is true but / will not score a 1600 the next time I take the SAT test is false. This shows that the former, the external negation, is not (logically) equivalent to the latter, the internal negation. As long as the distinction between internal and external negation is appreciated, one can affirm a sensible, restricted bivalence as involving external negations of claims and alongside it maintain the law of excluded middle (every proposition is either true or not true/false) and the
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom