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
    Only the actual is possible — future contingents are rule... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Only the actual is possible — future contingents are ruled out

    CausationModality & Possibility
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Every past truth is necessary
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The impossible does not follow from the possible
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Nothing is possible which neither is nor will be true
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's sea-battle argument (De Interpretatione 9) demonstrates that future contingents can be neither determinately true nor false now.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If bivalence fails for future contingents, the third supporting premise illicitly assumes what it must prove by collapsing possibility into actuality.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A statement about tomorrow's sea-battle is genuinely open — its truth-value is not yet fixed — so possible futures exceed what will in fact occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Diodorus's Master Argument was explicitly contested by Chrysippus, who defended a notion of possibility irreducible to actual or future truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Chrysippus held that 'a gem will never be cut' can be genuinely possible even if the gem is in fact never cut, grounding possibility in intrinsic capacity rather than temporal actualization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If intrinsic capacity constitutes a coherent modal basis independent of future truth, then the Diodoran inference from 'never true' to 'impossible' is a non-sequitur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Modality & PossibilityCausation

    Related

    A statement about tomorrow's sea-battle is genuinely open — its truth-value is n...Aristotle's sea-battle argument (De Interpretatione 9) demonstrates that future ...Chrysippus held that 'a gem will never be cut' can be genuinely possible even if...Diodorus's Master Argument was explicitly contested by Chrysippus, who defended ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Every past truth is necessaryIf bivalence fails for future contingents, the third supporting premise illicitl...If intrinsic capacity constitutes a coherent modal basis independent of future t...Nothing is possible which neither is nor will be trueThe impossible does not follow from the possible

    Similar

    Even if true propositions about future contingent events exist, knowin...85%There are currently no true propositions reporting what future conting...82%If God is possible, God cannot exist merely contingently, because cont...82%What is possible is limited to what either is or will be true at some ...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: logic-ancient
    View source passageHide passage
    Diodorus’ definition of possibility rules out future contingents and implies the counterintuitive thesis that only the actual is possible. Diodorus tried to prove this claim with his famous Master Argument, which sets out to show the incompatibility of (i) ‘every past truth is necessary’, (ii) ‘the impossible does not follow from the possible’, and (iii) ‘something is possible which neither is nor will be true’ (Epict. Diss. II.19). The argument has not survived, but various reconstructions have
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit