Is it implicit in saying that:
“It is possible that X happened”
that “It is possible that X did not happen”.
Ie: are those two statements actually the same?
they are not the same, as they state different things.
ie. it is possible that x happened is leaning towards x rather than not x you know, do you see what i mean?
however one implies the other, if it is only possible that x happened then also it is entirely possible that it did not. maybe it comes down to probabilities. sorry that’s not put very well.
they are not the same in the sense they are not identical
however they are both simultaneously implied whenever one is stated.
for a fun debate on this, check out pulp fiction, discussion after they leave the car, before they enter the apartment of those small time flocks of seagulls.
[contented edited by ILP]
Statement one. Basically says that you can take in ideas others place when it comes to things on life.
Statement two. Basically saying you can’t explore others emotions without stereotyping.
Everyone stereotypes, some alot, some just when necessary. Anyways, theres always a stereotype that could save you emotionally, or hurt them (Your emotions).
Just how I interpreted your example of Logic.
Is it possible that Billy stole the candy?
Is it possible that Billy did not still the candy?
In theory, Yes.
the only reason they would not be equivalent is because “possible” doesn’t necessarily imply 50/50 chance of something happening or not. saying somethign is possible could mean anything from 20/80 to 80/20, depending on the way the person meant it.
20/80 is still possible…
You could say, though, that an event that must happen, that has a 100% chance of occurring, is still “possible”. Thus, just because one statement is true, it does not mean the reverse is true.
For example: A statement and its converse do not need to have identical truth values:
Statement: If you live in Maine, then you live in the USA. True.
Converse: If you live in the USA, then you live in Maine. False.
Of course, ‘x is possible’ isn’t an if-then statement.
Mcgrady,
Let’s say Billy did steal the candy. The event was captured on video tape.
Q: Is it possible that Billy stole the candy?
A: It certainly is possible, in fact he did.
Q: Is it possible that he did not steal the candy?
A: It certainly is not possible, he stole it.
How can these two statements be the same?
Dunamis
the only reason why there is a discussion here is because the crappy english word ‘possible’ is ambiguous.
to solve the problem, translate what you mean by ‘possible’ into more words.
usually you can tell by context which meaning of ‘possible’ is being used.
‘its possible that the philadelphia eagles wont destroy all other football teams’ - in this case, ‘possible’ means highly unlikely. and not equal to ‘its possible that the eagles will destroy all other teams’ because in that one, ‘possible’ means ‘very likely’
‘its possible that christians are wrong about some things’ - not equal to “its possible that christians are not wrong about anything”, one is likely one is not.
“its possible that a coin toss will hit heads” this IS equal to “its possible a coin toss will hit tails”
just like tminion says. with more words.
Future,
I agree the word “possible” is crapy. That is the reason for me that polishing propositions is not really the core of philosophy. Human beings are language animals.
Dunamis
Dunami, lay off the speed.
dunamis, you have to take into account the inherent problems of the inductive method
is it possible he stole the candle ?
indeed it is, we have a videotape
is it possible he did not steal the candle
indeed it is, despite our videotape
it is why people judge “beyond any reasonable doubt” when called for jury duty. not for certainty, not beyond any doubt. etc
Zeno,
I like your spirit. All proposition analysis always seem like word games to me. In the end, your path leads down a very dark Cartesian hallway of doubt.
Billy has been convicted of the crime of stealing Candy.
Q:Is it possible that Billy has been convicted of the crime of stealing Candy?
A:Certainly it is possible, in fact he has been convicted.
Q: Is it possible that Billy has not been convicted of the crime of stealing Candy?
A: No, in fact he has been convicted.
In this case there is no induction problem. Convicted is defined by itself. If you want to doubt whether the conviction was a mass hallucination, or not, you are free to. But in this case, where the dependablity of the world and reported facts is assumed by the question, the two statements do not mean the same thing.
I’m sure that there are loads of Analytical philosophers who can make sushi out of this dead fish. My question is, what is the point?
Dunamis
Suppose we didn’t know whether or not Billy will be convicted. We could say that it is possible that Billy will be convicted, and it is also possible that he will not be convicted. We would be correct. Then suppose we found out that, yes, Billy has been convicted. None of the facts changed, except the fact that we, personally, now know that Billy has indeed been convicted. Could we still say that it is possible that Bily has not been convicted?..Then suppose someone else, who is still ignorant of Billy’s fate, says, “It is possible that Billy has not been convicted”. Are they correct in saying this? This is contrary to the facts…BUT: Billy’s state of being or not being convicted is a fact, even if it occurs in the future. The fact that it is in the future merely means that we are ignorant to it. So, to someone who is ignorant to the outcome of an event that has already occurred, any outcome of that event is still a possibility.
I hope that made a little sense. It’s like the idea of the cat in the box. If we have a cat hidden in a box, the cat is both dead and alive, because we do not know which it is.
Dunami, why are you adding a video camera into the equation? A video camera, and you should be quick to recognize this, changes the whole dynamics of the initial question.
Like I said earlier on, those two statements are the same in theory, but not in practical sense.
Off a psychology level. I believe logic is just being able to put 1 & 2 together for the basics of human thought, primarily your own. After “logic” comes “reasoning,” and ect.
.
that is the point dunamis. how does it relate ?