Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The fixity of the past is not grounded merely in causal intuitions but in the logical principle that what has occurred cannot be made not to have occurred.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The logical principle conflates semantic fixity (our statements about the past are determinate) with metaphysical fixity (past events cannot be different).
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Open future theories suggest tenseless logic may not apply to time: 'occurred' itself presupposes a particular temporal metaphysics, not a neutral logical principle.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The argument begs the question by defining 'past' in ways that already assume fixity rather than deriving it from logical principles alone.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical contradictions cannot be true: 'X occurred and X did not occur' violates the law of non-contradiction regardless of causation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The past's fixity follows from the meaning of 'past': by definition, past events have already become determinate and cannot retroactively alter.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Even if we could causally influence the past, we cannot make true statements about it false, which shows fixity transcends causal possibility.
?
How convincing is this?
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.
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42