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 Only the actual is possible — future contingents are ruled out

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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