quote:
No its not. The modal fallacy is the error of treating modal conditionals as if the modality applies only to the consequent of the conditional.
That is not what I am doing.
It's exactly what you are doing. Here is your argument:
i. If someone has foreknowledge of your choice A, then you must choose A.
ii. Someone has foreknowledge of your choice A
Therefore, you must choose A
The same argument can be made for past events:
i. If someone knows you made choice A, then you must have chosen A
ii. Someone knows you made choice A
Therefore, you must have chosen A
In both cases, the
must is only qualifying the consquent, whereas it should be qualifying the entire "if-then" proposition.
Why is the conclusion wrong in the second case but not the first?
quote:
I'm saying that you cannot choose a different choice than the one that they have foreknowledge of.
The choice they have foreknowledge of is the one you will make, or else its not foreknowledge. You can choose whatever you want still, it will just be known beforehand the choice you will make.
quote:
However, if their forknowledge is absolutely accurate, then you do not have the ability to change the decision that you have not made yet.
You want the ability to change the choice you will make? That doesn't make any sense. There is nothing to change because you haven't made the choice yet!
quote:
You haven't made the choice yet so you're not changing your choice. You are changing what they have foresaw you doing and then that makes their foreknowledge false.
It's not foreknowledge if it turns out false.
Edited by humoshi, : No reason given.