Is omniscience compatible with human freedom?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by ACB

No, not for an omniscient being. If it is possible to know them, then God does know them. But if they don't exist, it's not possible to know them, so he can't.

Well yes, of course. If there are facts, then necessarily, God knows of them. But then what? Certainly not that they necessarily had to be facts.

[Zetherin]

Sometimes I feel like we're actually wrestling with language, not with eachother...

[fast]

Notice the placement of the modal operator, “necessarily” in the following sentences:

1) Necessarily, if you are married, then you have a spouse.
2) If you are married, then necessarily, you have a spouse.

What is necessary is everything that follows the modal operator, so notice that the scope of the modal operator in the first sentence is greater than it is in the second sentence. What is necessary in the first sentence is, “if you are married, then you have a spouse,” and that is a necessary truth. What is (purportedly) necessary in the second sentence is, “you have a spouse,” but that (though perhaps true) is not a necessary truth but instead a contingent truth. Sentence one is true, but sentence two is false.

People confuse the two and think that sentence number two is true because sentence number one is true, but that is an error in reasoning and therefore a fallacy, and since it’s an error of reasoning with modalities, it has come to be known as the modal fallacy.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by fast

Notice the placement of the modal operator, “necessarily” in the following sentences:

1) Necessarily, if you are married, then you have a spouse.
2) If you are married, then necessarily, you have a spouse.

What is necessary is everything that follows the modal operator, so notice that the scope of the modal operator in the first sentence is greater than it is the second sentence. What is necessary in the first sentence is, “if you are married, then you have a spouse,” and that is a necessary truth. What is (purportedly) necessary in the second sentence is, “you have a spouse,” but that (though perhaps true) is not a necessary truth but instead a contingent truth. Sentence one is true, but sentence two is false.

People confuse the two and think that sentence number two is true because sentence number one is true, but that is an error in reasoning and therefore a fallacy, and since it’s an error of reasoning with modalities, it has come to be known as the modal fallacy.

I was not aware that where the "necessarily" is placed, necessarily matters (I say necessarily matters, because I can think of cases where it could matter). To me, both of those sentences read identically. And I think this is often how people speak. I could see someone speaking each sentence and meaning the same thing.

So, is the modal fallacy really pointing out an error in reasoning, or an error in language? In my case, I was confused as I didn't know that the placement of "necessarily" changed the meaning of the sentence, and in my ordinary use of language, I've never made such a distinction. It makes me think that modal operators, in the English language, aren't clarified enough.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

Sometimes I feel like we're actually wrestling with language, not with eachother...

"Philosophy is a constant battle against the bewitchment of the intelligent by language". Wittgenstein

---------- Post added 12-02-2009 at 08:14 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Zetherin

I was not aware that where the "necessarily" is placed, necessarily matters (I say necessarily matters, because I can think of cases where it could matter). To me, both of those sentences read identically. And I think this is often how people speak. I could see someone speaking each sentence and meaning the same thing.

So, is the modal fallacy really pointing out an error in reasoning, or an error in language? In my case, I was confused as I didn't know that the placement of "necessarily" changed the meaning of the sentence, and in my ordinary use of language, I've never made such a distinction. It makes me think that modal operators, in the English language, aren't clarified enough.

As I wrote, to hold that if you know that p is true, then necessarily p is true, implies that it is possible to know only necessary truths. But to hold that necessarily, if you know that p is true, then p is true, is not to imply that it is possible to know only necessary truths. So those statements must be different, since one can be true when the other is false. And, indeed, the first is false, and the second is true.

As Emil keeps pointing out, in this case, English (natural language) is misleading, and modal logic is clarifying. Modal logic gives us what is sometimes called, "a perspicuous representation" of the logical form behind the linguistic appearances. It is just another case of appearance versus reality; this time, linguistic appearance versus linguistic reality. Noam Chomsky, the famous linguist, calls this the difference between surface grammar, and deep grammar.

To quote Wittgenstein once more, "Philosophy is a constant battle against the bewitchment of the intellect by language".

[Emil]

Originally Posted by Zetherin

If God's knowing is certain, as God's knowing is infallible, how is this a no? I must do what God knows, as what he knows is certain. And with this logic, the answer to your question here:



is yes.



I actually meant I slipped into an irrelevance.

It's hard to know what you mean when you don't formalize here. These "must"'s can be interpreted two ways (at least).

[salima]

Originally Posted by fast

Notice the placement of the modal operator, “necessarily” in the following sentences:

1) Necessarily, if you are married, then you have a spouse.
2) If you are married, then necessarily, you have a spouse.

What is necessary is everything that follows the modal operator, so notice that the scope of the modal operator in the first sentence is greater than it is in the second sentence. What is necessary in the first sentence is, “if you are married, then you have a spouse,” and that is a necessary truth. What is (purportedly) necessary in the second sentence is, “you have a spouse,” but that (though perhaps true) is not a necessary truth but instead a contingent truth. Sentence one is true, but sentence two is false.

People confuse the two and think that sentence number two is true because sentence number one is true, but that is an error in reasoning and therefore a fallacy, and since it’s an error of reasoning with modalities, it has come to be known as the modal fallacy.

people would think that sentence two is true because otherwise what does it mean? that if you are married you dont necessarily have to have a spouse?
you cant say 2 is false-you can only say that it is false that 2 is necessarily true!
what i dont understand is why use the word necessarily at all?

there seem to be two ways of using language...to me, using the word necessarily is a more poetic or aesthetic way of wording the sentence, and might be meant only to imply a shade of meaning such as the words 'of course' or 'certainly' would add. but essentially it would not be a limit or condition placed on the other words in the sentence. in fact, why did i just use the word 'essentially'?

in that case, people need to specify whether or not they are using words as they are defined in 'formal logic' or common everyday use. this happens all the time on the forum. there are some people who are so well versed in the definitions and use of words in formal logic that they arent able to understand a person who is speaking in layman's terms any more.

[Emil]

Originally Posted by salima

people would think that sentence two is true because otherwise what does it mean? that if you are married you dont necessarily have to have a spouse?
you cant say 2 is false-you can only say that it is false that 2 is necessarily true!
what i dont understand is why use the word necessarily at all?

there seem to be two ways of using language...to me, using the word necessarily is a more poetic or aesthetic way of wording the sentence, and might be meant only to imply a shade of meaning such as the words 'of course' or 'certainly' would add. but essentially it would not be a limit or condition placed on the other words in the sentence. in fact, why did i just use the word 'essentially'?

in that case, people need to specify whether or not they are using words as they are defined in 'formal logic' or common everyday use. this happens all the time on the forum. there are some people who are so well versed in the definitions and use of words in formal logic that they arent able to understand a person who is speaking in layman's terms any more.

A strict interpretation of (2) yields a falsity. But we ordinarily use (2)-alike sentences when we mean (1). The modal fallacy is when we confuse them such as in many arguments against the possibility of free will and omniscience. I have no seen an argument yet that does not commit this fallacy.

1) Necessarily, if you are married, then you have a spouse.
□(P→Q)
2) If you are married, then necessarily, you have a spouse.
P→□Q

Of course, this is hardly understandable if you don't know logic, especially propositional logic.

[Reconstructo]

Emil, I'm a fan of propositional logic. I do, however, think it bumps against its limits at time. For instance, "the church is the bride of Christ." <__This is a sublime metaphorical statement, and metaphor is associated with rhetoric. I feel that logic has sold out emotional depth and wisdom (a term that is itself to hazy for logic), for gains in clarity and persuasiveness. Logic is perfect on its home court. But the big questions of life dwarf the capacities of a logic that turns its back on metaphor and an organically holistic view of language as it used by passionate beings for whom truth is only a means --excepting those for whom "truth" is a symbol of transcendence or God.

with respect,
recon

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Reconstructo

Emil, I'm a fan of propositional logic. I do, however, think it bumps against its limits at time. For instance, "the church is the bride of Christ." <__This is a sublime metaphorical statement,
recon

What has that to do with the modal fallacy, and the error of thinking that omniscient is incompatible with free will?