翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Probostwo Górne
・ Probostwo, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship
・ Probostwo, Pomeranian Voivodeship
・ Probosutedjo
・ Proboszczewice
・ Proboszczowice, Silesian Voivodeship
・ Proboszczowice, Łódź Voivodeship
・ Proboszczów
・ Probot
・ Probota
・ Probota Monastery
・ Probota River (Bahluieț)
・ Problem of Apollonius
・ Problem of evil
・ Problem of evil in Hinduism
Problem of future contingents
・ Problem of Hell
・ Problem of induction
・ Problem of mental causation
・ Problem of multiple generality
・ Problem of other minds
・ Problem of pain
・ Problem of points
・ Problem of religious language
・ Problem of the criterion
・ Problem of time
・ Problem of universals
・ Problem picture
・ Problem play
・ Problem property


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Problem of future contingents : ウィキペディア英語版
Problem of future contingents

Future contingent propositions (or simply, future contingents) are statements about states of affairs in the future that are neither necessarily true nor necessarily false.
The problem of future contingents seems to have been first discussed by Aristotle in chapter 9 of his ''On Interpretation'' (''De Interpretatione''), using the famous sea-battle example.〔Dorothea Frede, The sea-battle reconsidered, ''Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy'' 1985, pp. 31-87.〕 Roughly a generation later, Diodorus Cronus from the Megarian school of philosophy stated a version of the problem in his notorious Master Argument. The problem was later discussed by Leibniz.
The problem can be expressed as follows. Suppose that a sea-battle will not be fought tomorrow. Then it was also true yesterday (and the week before, and last year) that it will not be fought, since any true statement about what will be the case was also true in the past. But all past truths are now necessary truths; therefore it is now necessarily true that the battle will not be fought, and thus the statement that it will be fought is necessarily false. Therefore, it is not possible that the battle will be fought. In general, if something will not be the case, it is not possible for it to be the case. “For a man may predict an event ten thousand years beforehand, and another may predict the reverse; that which was truly predicted at the moment in the past will of necessity take place in the fullness of time” (''De Int.'' 18b35).
This conflicts with the idea of our own free choice: that we have the power to determine or control the course of events in the future, which seems impossible if what happens, or does not happen, is ''necessarily'' going to happen, or not happen. As Aristotle says, if so there would be no need "to deliberate or to take trouble, on the supposition that if we should adopt a certain course, a certain result would follow, while, if we did not, the result would not follow".
== Aristotle's solution ==

Aristotle solved the problem by asserting that the principle of bivalence found its exception in this paradox of the sea battles: in this specific case, what is impossible is that both alternatives can be possible at the same time: either there ''will'' be a battle, or there won't. Both options can't be simultaneously taken. Today, they are neither true nor false; but if one is true, then the other becomes false. According to Aristotle, it is impossible to say today if the proposition is correct: we must wait for the contingent realization (or not) of the battle, logic realizes itself afterwards:
:''One of the two propositions in such instances must be true and the other false, but we cannot say determinately that this or that is false, but must leave the alternative undecided. One may indeed be more likely to be true than the other, but it cannot be either actually true or actually false. It is therefore plain that it is not necessary that of an affirmation and a denial, one should be true and the other false. For in the case of that which exists potentially, but not actually, the rule which applies to that which exists actually does not hold good.'' ((§9 ))
For Diodorus, the future battle was either impossible or necessary. Aristotle added a third term, contingency, which saves logic while in the same time leaving place for indetermination in reality. What is necessary is not that there will or that there won't be a battle tomorrow, but the dichotomy itself is necessary:
:''A sea-fight must either take place tomorrow or not, but it is not necessary that it should take place tomorrow, neither is it necessary that it should not take place, yet it is necessary that it either should or should not take place tomorrow. (De Interpretatione'', (9, 19 a 30. ))
Thus, the event always comes in the form of the future, undetermined event; logic always comes afterwards. Hegel would say the same thing by claiming that wisdom came at dusk. For Aristotle, this is also a practical, ethical question: to pretend that the future is determined would have unacceptable consequences for man.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Problem of future contingents」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.