Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
Great! Then do the same for my claim. Tell me why the proposition "my airplane may or may not crash" is not true, or concede that it is.
You haven't been paying attention. At least three times I said it was true.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
Where does it say that propositions cannot be made about future events?
What do you mean, "where does it say...?" Is there a, "Bible," of epistemology, or logic you refer to. Use your own mind and you'll know why it's true.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
The Gettier problems make propositions about future events too.
That's exactly what I mean. Instead of leaning on what someone else says, think for yourself.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
This is a metaphysical disagreement. Does the future exist? Of course it does. And so - we can make claims about it.
You are right, it is a metaphysical disagreement. The future, like the past exists only as a concept, it does not exist metaphysically. Only what
is exists. To determine if something exists it is only necessary to ask if it is.
The future, like the past, is not a thing, entity, or substance, it is the concept for the relationship between that which was (past), and that which will be (future). Things and events can be past, that which was, and things and events can be future, that which will be; that is all that past and future mean. Past and future have no metaphysical existence.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:28 pm
I'll make it simple. The statement, "the plane crashed," must be either true or false because it is about a fact, something that actually happened. The statement, "the plane will crash," cannot be either true or false because it is only a guess.
The statement "the plane crashed" must be either true or false, and the statement "the plane will crash" will be either true or false.
You're getting closer. "The statement "the plane crashed" must be either true or false, ... " is correct as I stated, but you have changed this and perhaps did not notice, "...and the statement "the plane will crash"
will be either true or false." That is also correct now that you have changed it to
will be. It will be true once the plane has either flown successfully or unsuccessfully, but is not true until then.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
I agree with you that individually the truth-value of any one of the two propositions cannot be ascertained.
But holistically the truth-value of the proposition "this airplane may or may not crash" cannot be doubted.
I never said it could be doubted. I said it was true, but could not be true based on evidence, because there actually is none. I have no idea what, "holistically," means in this context. I know it's nonsense in every context I've ever seen it used.
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
RCSaunders wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:17 pm
If you were talking about the very first plane ever built and attempted to be flown, the statement, "This airplane will or will not crash," would be (subjunctive for
is) true. It has nothing to do with evidence.
I am using two separate facts for my argument. One is the fact that some airplanes crash. The other is the fact that some airplanes don't crash. And I am using those facts as the basis of my proposition for every airplane that is currently in service.
The facts are totally irrelevant. If there had never been a plane before, wouldn't it still be true that the first plane ever will either fly or crash? If every plane there ever was flew without crashing, wouldn't it still be true that the next plane that flew might crash?
Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:55 pm
The statement "this airplane may or may not crash on its next flight" is true. For every airplane.
I think this may be the crux of the disagreement. I agree and have all along that, "this airplane may or may not crash on its next flight," is true. Notice the statement is future possibility: may or may not, not an assertion of present fact: will or will not.
It is your earlier statement I disagreed with:
It then follows that at least one of these two propositions is true:
P1: This airplane will crash
P2. This airplane will not crash
I disagreed because it say one of the two proposition
is true. If you had said, one of these propositions
will be true, I would have agreed with it.
It would have been better, in that case to say:
At least one of these two propositions will be true:
P1: This airplane did crash.
P2. This airplane did not crash.
That is true and it requires no other evidence.