Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that On the Geachian view, contingent future propositions lack a determinate truth value prior to the relevant events.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Propositions are inherently either true or false; denying bivalence creates a truth-value gap that language cannot accommodate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If future contingents lack truth values now, we cannot coherently assess current arguments about future scenarios as valid or invalid.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Physics suggests the universe's state at any moment determines all future states; indeterminate truth values contradict this picture.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If contingent future propositions had determinate truth values now, the future would be fixed and causally closed to present agents.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Our experience of deliberation and choice presupposes that future outcomes remain genuinely open until events occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Classical logic's law of excluded middle need not apply to statements about contingent futures without incoherence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.