What is actual is a metaphysical necessity?
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
You look out of the window and it's raining. You grab a bottle and pour some water into a glass. You probably don't consider these events as necessary: it could have been a sunny day and you were free not to pour water into the glass. If you open a box and find a book inside it, you don't think that your act has affected the content, but just that the box contained a book and you didn't know it.
These two cases, however, are not so different: if it's not possible to change the past (take this a premise), it follows that once an event happened, it could not be otherwise from how it happened.
There is a book in the box, tomorrow it will rain, you'll pour some water in the glass... what's common between these facts is just your ignorance of a certain portion of space-time. It's raining, you pour the water - the fact that it didn't happen otherwise proves that these were the only possibilities (at least in this universe or hyper-time).
What happened is therefore necessary, for the simple fact that it's impossible that an event that took place in one way took place in another. After all, you know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, this is necessary - but you don't know what.
Note: this question is not strictly related to determinism. Causal determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what. For SEP determinism is: "The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed [as a matter of natural law]". The brackets are mine, and are the part that I don't need in the case above.
logic metaphysics ontology time
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
You look out of the window and it's raining. You grab a bottle and pour some water into a glass. You probably don't consider these events as necessary: it could have been a sunny day and you were free not to pour water into the glass. If you open a box and find a book inside it, you don't think that your act has affected the content, but just that the box contained a book and you didn't know it.
These two cases, however, are not so different: if it's not possible to change the past (take this a premise), it follows that once an event happened, it could not be otherwise from how it happened.
There is a book in the box, tomorrow it will rain, you'll pour some water in the glass... what's common between these facts is just your ignorance of a certain portion of space-time. It's raining, you pour the water - the fact that it didn't happen otherwise proves that these were the only possibilities (at least in this universe or hyper-time).
What happened is therefore necessary, for the simple fact that it's impossible that an event that took place in one way took place in another. After all, you know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, this is necessary - but you don't know what.
Note: this question is not strictly related to determinism. Causal determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what. For SEP determinism is: "The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed [as a matter of natural law]". The brackets are mine, and are the part that I don't need in the case above.
logic metaphysics ontology time
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
– Chris Degnen
13 hours ago
@ChrisDegnen thank you, I'm aware of it, the question is related but not exhausted by this idea.
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa please explain the differences in your question; or at least what you think distinguish this idea from the generally well-known determinism.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss Determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what.
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa what you offer as the explanation for determinism is but one explanation that was put through over the years. Your reasoning is another explanation for it.
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
You look out of the window and it's raining. You grab a bottle and pour some water into a glass. You probably don't consider these events as necessary: it could have been a sunny day and you were free not to pour water into the glass. If you open a box and find a book inside it, you don't think that your act has affected the content, but just that the box contained a book and you didn't know it.
These two cases, however, are not so different: if it's not possible to change the past (take this a premise), it follows that once an event happened, it could not be otherwise from how it happened.
There is a book in the box, tomorrow it will rain, you'll pour some water in the glass... what's common between these facts is just your ignorance of a certain portion of space-time. It's raining, you pour the water - the fact that it didn't happen otherwise proves that these were the only possibilities (at least in this universe or hyper-time).
What happened is therefore necessary, for the simple fact that it's impossible that an event that took place in one way took place in another. After all, you know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, this is necessary - but you don't know what.
Note: this question is not strictly related to determinism. Causal determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what. For SEP determinism is: "The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed [as a matter of natural law]". The brackets are mine, and are the part that I don't need in the case above.
logic metaphysics ontology time
You look out of the window and it's raining. You grab a bottle and pour some water into a glass. You probably don't consider these events as necessary: it could have been a sunny day and you were free not to pour water into the glass. If you open a box and find a book inside it, you don't think that your act has affected the content, but just that the box contained a book and you didn't know it.
These two cases, however, are not so different: if it's not possible to change the past (take this a premise), it follows that once an event happened, it could not be otherwise from how it happened.
There is a book in the box, tomorrow it will rain, you'll pour some water in the glass... what's common between these facts is just your ignorance of a certain portion of space-time. It's raining, you pour the water - the fact that it didn't happen otherwise proves that these were the only possibilities (at least in this universe or hyper-time).
What happened is therefore necessary, for the simple fact that it's impossible that an event that took place in one way took place in another. After all, you know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, this is necessary - but you don't know what.
Note: this question is not strictly related to determinism. Causal determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what. For SEP determinism is: "The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed [as a matter of natural law]". The brackets are mine, and are the part that I don't need in the case above.
logic metaphysics ontology time
logic metaphysics ontology time
edited 7 hours ago
asked 14 hours ago
Francesco D'Isa
506112
506112
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
– Chris Degnen
13 hours ago
@ChrisDegnen thank you, I'm aware of it, the question is related but not exhausted by this idea.
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa please explain the differences in your question; or at least what you think distinguish this idea from the generally well-known determinism.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss Determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what.
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa what you offer as the explanation for determinism is but one explanation that was put through over the years. Your reasoning is another explanation for it.
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
– Chris Degnen
13 hours ago
@ChrisDegnen thank you, I'm aware of it, the question is related but not exhausted by this idea.
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa please explain the differences in your question; or at least what you think distinguish this idea from the generally well-known determinism.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss Determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what.
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa what you offer as the explanation for determinism is but one explanation that was put through over the years. Your reasoning is another explanation for it.
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
2
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
– Chris Degnen
13 hours ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
– Chris Degnen
13 hours ago
@ChrisDegnen thank you, I'm aware of it, the question is related but not exhausted by this idea.
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
@ChrisDegnen thank you, I'm aware of it, the question is related but not exhausted by this idea.
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa please explain the differences in your question; or at least what you think distinguish this idea from the generally well-known determinism.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa please explain the differences in your question; or at least what you think distinguish this idea from the generally well-known determinism.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss Determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what.
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss Determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what.
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa what you offer as the explanation for determinism is but one explanation that was put through over the years. Your reasoning is another explanation for it.
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa what you offer as the explanation for determinism is but one explanation that was put through over the years. Your reasoning is another explanation for it.
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 9 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
I suggest a distinction. If X happened - you poured a glass of water on December 13 2018 at 10.57 hrs - the truth that it happened is a necessary truth in the sense that it is impossible for that historical truth to be false now or at any future time.
However, to introduce the distinction, it does not follow that your pouring that glass of water was a necessary event at that time. For all I know we may live in a world of total contingency where anything can and does happen undeterministically. You might even have had free will in a deterministic universe such that you had a choice totally unconditioned by your situation for action and the laws of nature (if there are any).
In such scenarios your action was not necessitated but, once it had been done, it was necessarily true, and in that sense is a necessary truth, that you had done that action.
Note
'Necessity' is not a notion I generally use but I suppress my reservations in the interests of the question.
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
1
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
1
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose that the universe is not deterministic (indeed, this is required for anything to not be necessary given the initial state of the universe). This can take whatever form desired - chance, free will, or whatever other position one can take.
Then an event A which happens at time B is necessary at time C if and only if, in all potential futures of C, the statement "A occurred at time B" is true. When we say that an event is necessary, we are frequently speaking in relation to the beginning of the universe, but other referents are possible.
Directly relevant to your example: you pouring water in the glass is necessary only if there was no possible world in which you did not do so, given (perhaps) the state of the universe that morning.
There is a second definition of necessary, which is related and similar. Something can be said to be necessary if there are no possible worlds in which it does not happen. For example, it is not necessary that there be something rather than nothing, or that entropy exist. It is necessary that logic holds, because it doesn't depend on anything contingent on any particular possible world.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is a clever idea, but I have never managed to articulate it well. It is encouraging to see someone else express it though.
I think the words "numerically identical" belong somewhere in the explanation. Something along the lines of "A thing that occurs (or will occur) in a certain way must occur in that particular way in all numerically identical cases. If it does not occur or occurs differently then something has changed and the case is not numerically identical". Something like that anyway. Its a bizarre delightfully circular and bizarre but that does not mean its not true. Maybe only circular things can be really true, truth has to start somewhere.
New contributor
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57879%2fwhat-is-actual-is-a-metaphysical-necessity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
8
down vote
I suggest a distinction. If X happened - you poured a glass of water on December 13 2018 at 10.57 hrs - the truth that it happened is a necessary truth in the sense that it is impossible for that historical truth to be false now or at any future time.
However, to introduce the distinction, it does not follow that your pouring that glass of water was a necessary event at that time. For all I know we may live in a world of total contingency where anything can and does happen undeterministically. You might even have had free will in a deterministic universe such that you had a choice totally unconditioned by your situation for action and the laws of nature (if there are any).
In such scenarios your action was not necessitated but, once it had been done, it was necessarily true, and in that sense is a necessary truth, that you had done that action.
Note
'Necessity' is not a notion I generally use but I suppress my reservations in the interests of the question.
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
1
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
1
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
I suggest a distinction. If X happened - you poured a glass of water on December 13 2018 at 10.57 hrs - the truth that it happened is a necessary truth in the sense that it is impossible for that historical truth to be false now or at any future time.
However, to introduce the distinction, it does not follow that your pouring that glass of water was a necessary event at that time. For all I know we may live in a world of total contingency where anything can and does happen undeterministically. You might even have had free will in a deterministic universe such that you had a choice totally unconditioned by your situation for action and the laws of nature (if there are any).
In such scenarios your action was not necessitated but, once it had been done, it was necessarily true, and in that sense is a necessary truth, that you had done that action.
Note
'Necessity' is not a notion I generally use but I suppress my reservations in the interests of the question.
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
1
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
1
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
I suggest a distinction. If X happened - you poured a glass of water on December 13 2018 at 10.57 hrs - the truth that it happened is a necessary truth in the sense that it is impossible for that historical truth to be false now or at any future time.
However, to introduce the distinction, it does not follow that your pouring that glass of water was a necessary event at that time. For all I know we may live in a world of total contingency where anything can and does happen undeterministically. You might even have had free will in a deterministic universe such that you had a choice totally unconditioned by your situation for action and the laws of nature (if there are any).
In such scenarios your action was not necessitated but, once it had been done, it was necessarily true, and in that sense is a necessary truth, that you had done that action.
Note
'Necessity' is not a notion I generally use but I suppress my reservations in the interests of the question.
I suggest a distinction. If X happened - you poured a glass of water on December 13 2018 at 10.57 hrs - the truth that it happened is a necessary truth in the sense that it is impossible for that historical truth to be false now or at any future time.
However, to introduce the distinction, it does not follow that your pouring that glass of water was a necessary event at that time. For all I know we may live in a world of total contingency where anything can and does happen undeterministically. You might even have had free will in a deterministic universe such that you had a choice totally unconditioned by your situation for action and the laws of nature (if there are any).
In such scenarios your action was not necessitated but, once it had been done, it was necessarily true, and in that sense is a necessary truth, that you had done that action.
Note
'Necessity' is not a notion I generally use but I suppress my reservations in the interests of the question.
answered 13 hours ago
Geoffrey Thomas♦
22.7k22089
22.7k22089
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
1
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
1
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
1
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
1
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
Thank you for your interesting answer! I mostly agree. The event can be undeterministic, but in the sense that we can't predict it. Once it has happened, in what sense it could be otherwise? Obviously it could not, since it was not. I think this is a good way to think it: I know for sure that something will happen tomorrow, but I don't know what
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
1
1
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
@Franceso D'Isa. I entirely agree - it was what I was trying to say. An event may not occur of necessity (and hence be in some sense unpredictable) but once it has occurred it is necessarily true that it has occurred. The statement that it has occurred is in this sense a necessary truth. Best - GLT
– Geoffrey Thomas♦
13 hours ago
1
1
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
It might be worth taking into thought the idea that while this may be true to events you remember (subjective, short-time memorized events), you can't necessarily say the same for other past "events" (events that happened in the far past, events that happened to other people).
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss of course we can suppose a skeptic doubt about what's happened in general, but this would open another big chapter. For argument's sake I'd take for granted that the event(s) we are talking about did happen, independently from the witness' reliability
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa but if you take for granted the events actually happened, you already pre-suppose half the answer :-)
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose that the universe is not deterministic (indeed, this is required for anything to not be necessary given the initial state of the universe). This can take whatever form desired - chance, free will, or whatever other position one can take.
Then an event A which happens at time B is necessary at time C if and only if, in all potential futures of C, the statement "A occurred at time B" is true. When we say that an event is necessary, we are frequently speaking in relation to the beginning of the universe, but other referents are possible.
Directly relevant to your example: you pouring water in the glass is necessary only if there was no possible world in which you did not do so, given (perhaps) the state of the universe that morning.
There is a second definition of necessary, which is related and similar. Something can be said to be necessary if there are no possible worlds in which it does not happen. For example, it is not necessary that there be something rather than nothing, or that entropy exist. It is necessary that logic holds, because it doesn't depend on anything contingent on any particular possible world.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose that the universe is not deterministic (indeed, this is required for anything to not be necessary given the initial state of the universe). This can take whatever form desired - chance, free will, or whatever other position one can take.
Then an event A which happens at time B is necessary at time C if and only if, in all potential futures of C, the statement "A occurred at time B" is true. When we say that an event is necessary, we are frequently speaking in relation to the beginning of the universe, but other referents are possible.
Directly relevant to your example: you pouring water in the glass is necessary only if there was no possible world in which you did not do so, given (perhaps) the state of the universe that morning.
There is a second definition of necessary, which is related and similar. Something can be said to be necessary if there are no possible worlds in which it does not happen. For example, it is not necessary that there be something rather than nothing, or that entropy exist. It is necessary that logic holds, because it doesn't depend on anything contingent on any particular possible world.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Suppose that the universe is not deterministic (indeed, this is required for anything to not be necessary given the initial state of the universe). This can take whatever form desired - chance, free will, or whatever other position one can take.
Then an event A which happens at time B is necessary at time C if and only if, in all potential futures of C, the statement "A occurred at time B" is true. When we say that an event is necessary, we are frequently speaking in relation to the beginning of the universe, but other referents are possible.
Directly relevant to your example: you pouring water in the glass is necessary only if there was no possible world in which you did not do so, given (perhaps) the state of the universe that morning.
There is a second definition of necessary, which is related and similar. Something can be said to be necessary if there are no possible worlds in which it does not happen. For example, it is not necessary that there be something rather than nothing, or that entropy exist. It is necessary that logic holds, because it doesn't depend on anything contingent on any particular possible world.
New contributor
Suppose that the universe is not deterministic (indeed, this is required for anything to not be necessary given the initial state of the universe). This can take whatever form desired - chance, free will, or whatever other position one can take.
Then an event A which happens at time B is necessary at time C if and only if, in all potential futures of C, the statement "A occurred at time B" is true. When we say that an event is necessary, we are frequently speaking in relation to the beginning of the universe, but other referents are possible.
Directly relevant to your example: you pouring water in the glass is necessary only if there was no possible world in which you did not do so, given (perhaps) the state of the universe that morning.
There is a second definition of necessary, which is related and similar. Something can be said to be necessary if there are no possible worlds in which it does not happen. For example, it is not necessary that there be something rather than nothing, or that entropy exist. It is necessary that logic holds, because it doesn't depend on anything contingent on any particular possible world.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 7 hours ago
Spitemaster
1111
1111
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is a clever idea, but I have never managed to articulate it well. It is encouraging to see someone else express it though.
I think the words "numerically identical" belong somewhere in the explanation. Something along the lines of "A thing that occurs (or will occur) in a certain way must occur in that particular way in all numerically identical cases. If it does not occur or occurs differently then something has changed and the case is not numerically identical". Something like that anyway. Its a bizarre delightfully circular and bizarre but that does not mean its not true. Maybe only circular things can be really true, truth has to start somewhere.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
This is a clever idea, but I have never managed to articulate it well. It is encouraging to see someone else express it though.
I think the words "numerically identical" belong somewhere in the explanation. Something along the lines of "A thing that occurs (or will occur) in a certain way must occur in that particular way in all numerically identical cases. If it does not occur or occurs differently then something has changed and the case is not numerically identical". Something like that anyway. Its a bizarre delightfully circular and bizarre but that does not mean its not true. Maybe only circular things can be really true, truth has to start somewhere.
New contributor
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
This is a clever idea, but I have never managed to articulate it well. It is encouraging to see someone else express it though.
I think the words "numerically identical" belong somewhere in the explanation. Something along the lines of "A thing that occurs (or will occur) in a certain way must occur in that particular way in all numerically identical cases. If it does not occur or occurs differently then something has changed and the case is not numerically identical". Something like that anyway. Its a bizarre delightfully circular and bizarre but that does not mean its not true. Maybe only circular things can be really true, truth has to start somewhere.
New contributor
This is a clever idea, but I have never managed to articulate it well. It is encouraging to see someone else express it though.
I think the words "numerically identical" belong somewhere in the explanation. Something along the lines of "A thing that occurs (or will occur) in a certain way must occur in that particular way in all numerically identical cases. If it does not occur or occurs differently then something has changed and the case is not numerically identical". Something like that anyway. Its a bizarre delightfully circular and bizarre but that does not mean its not true. Maybe only circular things can be really true, truth has to start somewhere.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 4 hours ago
Yuri
111
111
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57879%2fwhat-is-actual-is-a-metaphysical-necessity%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
– Chris Degnen
13 hours ago
@ChrisDegnen thank you, I'm aware of it, the question is related but not exhausted by this idea.
– Francesco D'Isa
13 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa please explain the differences in your question; or at least what you think distinguish this idea from the generally well-known determinism.
– Yechiam Weiss
10 hours ago
@YechiamWeiss Determinism says that event X is determined completely by previously existing causes. In this case, X can happen even undeterministically. X would be unpredictable, but even before it happens the fact that X happens is necessary, although you may not know what X is. You know for sure that something (X) will happen tomorrow, but you don't know what.
– Francesco D'Isa
9 hours ago
@FrancescoD'Isa what you offer as the explanation for determinism is but one explanation that was put through over the years. Your reasoning is another explanation for it.
– Yechiam Weiss
8 hours ago