I'm using logic to refer to a language about relations on an abstract level, and more specifically, it has to do with implications/inferences of relations.

Not everything in the world is a language about relations, is it? — Terrapin Station

OK, fine. I would call De Morgan's law, modus ponens, modus tollens, or the axioms of first order propositional logic "laws", but if you would rather view them as "relations... (that have) to do with implication/inference relations", that is perfectly fine with me.

I am no less puzzled by your claim that logical possibilities are a subset of metaphysical possibilities.

Again, can you think of just one metaphysical possibility that isn't a logical possibility?

Again, can you think of just one metaphysical possibility that isn't a logical possibility? — Pierre-Normand

I just explained this to you. Imagine that there are no people. There would still be metaphysical possibilities. There would be no logical possibilities. There would be no logic period.

I don't think you really understand what I'm saying, which makes it frustrating to try to communicate.

I just explained this to you. Imagine that there are no people. There would still be metaphysical possibilities. There would be no logical possibilities. There would be no logic period. — Terrapin Station

This is not an example of something that is a metaphysical possibility and not a logical possibility. It's rather an imagined scenario (for instance, an alternative history where human beings didn't evolve) where nobody invented logic. But it is logically possible that no intelligent beings had evolved: for instance if a huge meteorite had hit the earth 100 million years ago and killed all the higher life forms. So the imagined scenario is logically possible. Else, you'd have to say that it's logically impossible for mankind to become extinct (unless other sorts of beings somewhere, on another planet maybe, still go on thinking logical thoughts). But logic alone doesn't rule out the possibility of mankind's extinction at some point in the future.

This is not an example of something that is a metaphysical possibility and not a logical possibility. It's rather an imagined scenario (for instance, an alternative history where human beings didn't evolve) where nobody invented logic. — Pierre-Normand

It's not just imagined. Persons didn't exist at one point in the past. There was no logic. No logical possibilities. But there were metaphysical possibilities.

It's not logically possible for no intelligent beings to evolve.* If no intelligent beings evolve, there is no logic. You're assuming that logic is something other than a thing that intelligent beings do.

(*Prior to intelligent beings evolving, it's also not logically possible for them to evolve. Again, if there are no intelligent beings, there is no logic.)

Let's see a definition of free will and how it relates to determinism:

Free-will: The free-will doctrine, opposed to determinism, ascribes to the human will freedom in one or more of the following senses:

(a)The freedom of indeterminacy is the will's alleged independence of antecedent conditions, psychological and physiological. A free-will in this sense is at least partially uncaused or is not related in a uniform way with the agent's character, motives and circumstances.

(b)The freedom of alternative choice which consists in the supposed ability of the agent to choose among alternative possibilities of action and

(c)The freedom of self-determination consisting in decision independent of external constraint but in accordance with the inner motives and ideals of the agent.

http://www.ditext.com/runes/f.html

It's not just imagined. Persons didn't exist at one point in the past. There was no logic. No logical possibilities. But there were metaphysical possibilities.

It's not logically possible for no intelligent beings to evolve. If no intelligent beings evolve, there is no logic. You're assuming that logic is something other than a thing that intelligent beings do. — Terrapin Station

The claim that it's not logically possible for no intelligent beings to evolve conflates two things. It conflates the idea of this scenario not being logically conceivable by us, and the idea of this scenario describing a state of affairs where our logic (or anyone's logic) has not been invented and/or made use of within the imagined situation.

Your claim doesn't make anymore sense than the claim that is it logically impossible for there to be distant planets where not life evolved, since in that case the is no logic on those planets.

Say it's 10 billion years ago or so.

Is it logically possible at that point in time for intelligent beings to evolve or not evolve?

Say it's 10 billion years ago or so.

Is it logically possible at that point in time for intelligent beings to evolve or not evolve? — Terrapin Station

You must resolve the ambiguity between the idea of (1) its being logically possible (according our conception of logic, now) that something could have been the case at time t, and the different idea of (2) its being logically possible at time t that something is possible at that time.

The second construal presupposes that there is something about the claim that must be indexed to the principles of logic that are being used by whoever happens to be alive, and sapient, at that time. But this is no part the the usual idea of logical possibility, where the criteria of logical consistency are our own criteria, and not the criteria of the creatures that may populate the contemplated scenario (if there are any).

I'm asking you a yes or no question about time t=10 billion years ago, or say at the moment of the big bang.

At that time (so a la (2)), not now where you're thinking about that time, is it logically possible for intelligent beings to evolve or not evolve? Yes or no. I'm not going to move on until you answer yes or no, despite how much you try to avoid doing so.

At that time, not now where you're thinking about that time, is it logically possible for intelligent beings to evolve or not evolve? Yes or no. I'm not going to move on until you answer yes or no, despite how much you try to avoid doing so. — Terrapin Station

I've explained to you that your question conflates two different ideas. I've explicitly disambiguated those two ways to read the question. The answer, according to the first construal, is "yes". The second construal, which seems to be your intended construal, doesn't really make sense. In any case, it's not related to our ordinary understanding of logical possibility according to which it is logically possible that an atomic war could have wiped out humankind ten years ago and that the earth would have continued orbiting the sun.

The second construal, which seems to be your intended construal, doesn't really make sense. — Pierre-Normand

Do you think it makes sense that there was a time billions of years ago, just after the big bang, say?

Do you think it makes sense that there was a time billions of years ago, just after the big bang, say? — Terrapin Station

I am not sure exactly how to evaluate the proposition "there was a time billions of years ago". What would it mean for its being the case that there isn't "a time" at some point in the past?

I am not sure exactly how to evaluate the proposition "there was a time at t". What would it mean for its being the case that there isn't "a time" at some point in the past? — Pierre-Normand

So you don't know if there was a "point" in time billions of years ago? Do you know if there was a point in time yesterday?

So you don't know if there was a "point" in time billions of years ago? Do you know if there was a point in time yesterday? — Terrapin Station

What does a "point" in time look like? This sounds like the propositional reification of an unsaturated predicate. I can tell you if there was a point in time when the sun was shining. Temporal point are rather like spatial locations. You can tell if there is something or other at this or that place or if there is (was, or will be) something occurring at this or that time. But mentioning a time and asking if there is a point in time at that time seems strangely confused. It's like asking "is there a 'point in space' in the corner of this room?".

Didn't I say "at the moment of the big bang" a couple times?

But presumably what you would accept is ◇A ∨ ◇B
— Michael

A determinist would not accept that. I noted this explicitly already. — Terrapin Station

A determinist wouldn't accept ◇A ∧ ◇B. But they must accept ◇A ∨ ◇B (or accept that both are impossible – but for the sake of argument we're accepting that one of them is determined to happen).

A determinist wouldn't accept ◇A ∧ ◇B. They must accept ◇A ∨ ◇B (or accept that both are impossible). — Michael

Only one is possible to them, however you want to formalize it. (I'm not of the opinion that there are no semantic ambiguities just because we've formalized something.)

If one of them is possible then ◇A ∨ ◇B is true. So the rest follows.

ONLY one. Again, however that makes sense to you to formalize it. I'm not of the opinion that formalizations have no semantic ambiguities.

Didn't I say "at the moment of the big bang" a couple times? — Terrapin Station

Not quite. You mentioned a moment shortly after the big bang. But then you are asking me if there was a "point in time" at that time. This is just like asking if there is a point in space in the corner of the room. But you've just mentioned such a point. How could there not be a specific temporal location "at the time" you just specified as a specific temporal location?

I didn't write "or say at the moment of the big bang"?

ONLY one. Again, however that makes sense to you to formalize it. I'm not of the opinion that formalizations have no semantic ambiguities. — Terrapin Station

That's why I used ◇A ∨ ◇B, not ◇A ∧ ◇B.

Although, to be more proper, it's ◇A ⊻ ◇B (exclusive or).

I didn't write "or say at the moment of the big bang"? — Terrapin Station

Yes, OK, you said that also. That's not very helpful. Should we now be talking about space-time point singularities in the context of general relativity and quantum cosmology? You haven't explained how your question about there being, or there not being, a "point in time" at some specified moment in time, whichever it is, makes any sense.

Right, so do you think that there was a time when the big bang occurred?

Right, so do you think that there was a time when the big bang occurred? — Terrapin Station

This question can't be answered meaningfully unless it is being interpreted within the conceptual framework of some fundamental physical theory. It's likely that in relation of such a framework, the question is formulated badly. The idea of a continuous linear ordering of moments in time, or of an initial moment, may break down.

Right, so you'd also say that you can't answer meaningfully whether there was a time/a "point" in time (in quotation marks for a reason) that you had lunch or whatever meal(s) you might have eaten yesterday?

Right, so you'd also say that you can't answer meaningfully whether there was a time/a "point" in time (in quotation marks for a reason) that you had lunch or whatever meal you might have eaten yesterday? — Terrapin Station

That's correct. Because moments in time when specific sorts of events are truly said to have occurred are coarse-grained in a way that must be consistent with the typical duration of those events. For this reason, I happen to think that the idea of 'the present' as an unextended temporal location that separates the past from the future is unintelligible. For any meaningful use of the concept of the present, it has some sort of temporal 'thickness'.

Would you say that there was a yesterday, and that it was before today, but after last week?

Would you say that there was a yesterday, and that it was before today, but after last week? — Terrapin Station

For sure. But that is just to say that it is meaningful to say that things occurred yesterday, and that they thereby occurred earlier than today and later than last week.

Why would that be meaningful but it's not meaningful to say that things occurred 15 (or 18 or whatever age you accept) billion years ago?

(At this point, by the way, I'm starting to think that you're either basically insane or just an educated moron. Just thought I should let you know that.)