My Modality Series & Blogs Generally

My recent series on modal­ity (which ter­mi­nated in this post) was never meant to con­clu­sively prove the com­pos­si­bil­ity of fore­knowl­edge and lib­er­tar­ian free will. It was only to resolve the appar­ent con­tra­dic­tion cre­ated by the facts that fore­knowl­edge requires that there be no alter­nate pos­si­bil­i­ties, yet free will requires that there be alter­nate pos­si­bil­i­ties. (If there are alter­nate pos­si­ble futures, how can it be known which will occur? And if the future is known, how could mat­ters unfold any other way?) The res­o­lu­tion is seen by under­stand­ing that the type of alter­na­tives required to be lack­ing to ground fore­knowl­edge is dif­fer­ent than the type of alter­na­tives required to be present to ground free will. By show­ing that there are dif­fer­ent modes of pos­si­bil­ity I believe I nuanced the tra­di­tional Prin­ci­ple of Alter­nate Pos­si­bil­i­ties in order to show that, as far as this one par­tic­u­lar mat­ter is con­cerned, fore­knowl­edge and free will are not mutu­ally meta­phys­i­cally exclusive.

Being a blog and not a pub­lished work, my series did not posi­tion itself into the broader ongo­ing dia­logue in the pub­lished lit­er­a­ture by way of cita­tions, though it did make use of some con­ven­tional terms (in some cases inten­tion­ally flex­ing them). I think this is a good use for a blog: to set down some ideas whose rela­tion to the ideas of oth­ers is not yet fully under­stood, which are not yet fully devel­oped, which lack rhetor­i­cal pol­ish, or for other rea­sons are not close enough to pub­li­ca­tion to be kept under wraps and about which a thinker is open to pub­lic feedback.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *