Philosophy 2

The grandfather paradox states:

if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, then you could not exist, so you could not have killed your grandfather, etc.

Explain the following conceptual distinctions: a priori/a posteriori, analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent, necessary/sufficient, type/token, use/mention

1. A posteriori: Gained from testimony/ A posteriori knowledge or justification is dependent on experience or empirical evidence. Example: Some bachelors are happy. 2. A priori: Knowledge gained independent of any sort of experience 3. Analytic propositions: Are true by virtue of their meaning. Example: bachelors are unmarried. 4. Synthetic propositions: Are true by how their meaning relates to the world. Example: bachelors are unhappy. 5. Necessary: True propositions (often simply called necessary truths) are ones which must be true, or whose opposite is impossible. Necessary truths are those that are true in all possible worlds. Examples: It is not the case that it is raining and not raining. 2 + 2 = 4. All bachelors are unmarried 6. Contingent: Contingently true propositions (often simply called contingent truths) are those that are not necessary and whose opposite is therefore possible. Contingent truths are those that are true in some possible worlds and false in others. Examples: It seldom rains in the Sahara. There are more than four states in the USA. Some bachelors drive Maserati. 7. Type: A type is a category or class of an object or event. 8. Token: Token is a specific instance or occurrence of a type of object or event. 9. Use: A word is used when we talk about the world by means of it. Example: There is a tree in the garden. 10. Mention: A word is mentioned when we talk about the word itself.Mentioned words often appear between quotation marks orin italics. Example: "Tree" is spelled with two "e"s.

Explain McTaggart's distinction between an A-series and a B-series of time. According to McTaggart, what is the status of the A-series/B-series distinction?

1. A-Series: Includes the properties of being past, present and future. a. Expressions include words such as: present, past, future, today, tomorrow, five weeks ago (indexicals) b. Is, was, will be c. According to A-series, events move from the future, through the present, and into the past. Events were once future become present and then retreat into the past. 2. B-Series: includes the properties of being earlier than, later than, and simultaneous with another event. a. Include such words as: simultaneously,two years earlier than, 1/17/16, and ten minutes later than. b. Events must only have one position relevant to another event c. Standing in earlier-later and simultaneous relations to one another. 3. A sentence containing an A-series expression is true at one time but false at another. A sentence whose only temporal expressions are B-series expression is true at all times if it's true at any time.

Explain some of the solutions to the paradox of omnipotence. Which of these solutions do you find plausible and why?

1st solution: a. Divine voluntarism: An omnipotent being x can do things whose description is self-contradictory. Such a being can render necessary truths false and make a stone that is too heavy for x to lift and also lift it. i. Problem: entails the logical possibility of the logically impossible. 2nd solution: b. Not being able to do something that is impossible is fully compatible with being omnipotent. i. Problem: Why should an omnipotent being be limited by logic? Though an omnipotent being should be able to perform any logically possible action can he tell a lie? Cause choice in free will? Make a genuine dollar bill? Make an antique vase? Intrinsic and relational properties (historical properties) 3rd solution: Restrict omnipotence not only to what is logically possible but also to what is possible for the particular agent. This takes care of counterexamples regarding relational properties of objects. i. Problem: McEar example.

What is a paradox? What is an antinomy?

A paradox is an apparently unacceptable conclusion derived by apparently acceptable reasoning from apparently acceptable premises (Sainsbury 2009) A paradox is an argument which has these features: (1) its premises appear to be true; (2) its conclusion appears to be false; and (3) it appears to be valid. Antimony is a pair of arguments where: Each argument begins with premises that appear uncontroversially true. Each argument proceeds via reasoning that appears uncontroversially valid. The conclusions of the arguments are incompatible with one another. Focusing on Kant's Second Antimony: 2nd Antinomy Thesis: Every composite substance in the world is made up of simple parts,and nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the simple Antithesis: No composite thing in the world is made up of simple parts, And there nowhere exists in the world anything simple

What is a proposition?

A. A proposition is the meaning of a declarative sentence. B. Only declarative sentences express propositions C. Propositions are true or false D. Propositions are different from the action by which they are expressed. E. Propositions are different from the words, sounds, symbols, or brain states by which they are expressed. F. Propositions are independent of the language used to express them. Ex. Alvin- 5 utterances, 3 sentences, 1 proposition

Aristotle avoids fatalism by arguing that future contingents are neither true nor false. What does it mean to say that future contingents are neither true nor false? How does this help avoiding fatalism? Do you find Aristotle's move convincing and why?

A. Aristotle's idea that future contingents have no truth values makes sense if we adopt McTaggart's A-series of time. According to the A-series, the passage of time brings about changes in the truth values of a tensed statement. Aristotle could add, that the passage of time can give a truth value to a statement that did not have a truth value in the past. B. There are two interpretations of premise 2. On interpretation 2A, the SBA is invalid. On interpretation 2B, the premise is false and the argument unsound.

Subject S's will is free with respect to performing action A if and only if S could have chosen to do other than A." Explain this definition of free will.

A. The will is free if it's not predetermined/ caused by antecedent factors B. Means that we are self-determined, not (ultimately) subject to forces outside of our control- it means, we could have chosen otherwise. C. Free will is the ability to choose to do otherwise in the same circumstances.

Explain Kant's argument for the antithesis that composites are not composed of simples. Explain Kant's argument for the thesis that everything is either simple or composed of simples.

Argument for antithesis (indirect)- There are no simples. 1. Assume that a composite thing is made up of simple parts. 2. Every part of this composite thing occupies a spatial location. 3. If something occupies space, then it is a composite entity. 4. Therefore, every part of a composite substance is itself composite. Argument for thesis- Matter is made up of simple parts. 1. Assume composite substances are not made up of simple parts. They are infinitely divisible. 2. If we take away all idea of composition from that of an infinitely divisible entity, there would be nothing left. And no basic substance, either. 3.So, either infinitely divisible entities are not made out of any simple substances, or there must remain something which exists, independently of the composition, namely a simple substance. 4. But a composite substance must be made out of some substance. Otherwise, it would not be composed of anything. 5. Therefore, there must be simple substances out of which composite substances are formed.

Explain the argument for fatalism from foreknowledge. What is the argument meant to show? How can the conclusion of the argument from foreknowledge be resisted?

Argument from foreknowledge: 1. Necessarily, if God knows you will do x tomorrow, then you will do x tomorrow. 2. Necessarily God knows that you will do x tomorrow. C. Therefore, it is necessary that you do x tomorrow. You don't do x voluntarily. Argument meant to show you don't have free will, ex. Osmo Contra Argument: 1. Change premise 2 to state "God knows that you will do x tomorrow. 2. The fact that God knows what I will do in the future does not make it necessary that I should do it. It does not rob me of free will. If God knows that I will do x tomorrow, then I will do x but my doing x may still be voluntary.

Some have argued that time travel into the past is impossible because it would allow the time traveler to undermine her own existence. What is the grandfather paradox? Explain David Lewis's solution to the grandfather paradox.

Arises whenever a time traveler goes into the past and prevents an event that is a precondition of the traveler making the backward time-journey in the first place. A time traveler goes back in time and kills his grandfather before the grandfather as fathered children. If the grandfather dies at this point, then one of the time traveler's parents never exists. Hence the traveler can't be born and travel back to kill the grandfather. Issue: it is impossible to kill your own grandfather because it would violate the law of non-contradiction- the grandfather would somehow both survive to become a parent and not survive. If contradictory situations then time travel is impossible. Solution: a. Equivocation about the meaning of "can"- when people can do something we mean that they have the capacity to. i. Time traveler cannot change the past but can participate in the past. b. Parallel worlds allow for coherent scenarios in which the past is changed. No longer time travel and is instead inter-world travel.

Which is false: A.In principle, free will is compatible with causal determinism. B. Fatalism is the view that whatever a person's actions and circumstances, his or her predetermined end is inevitable. C. Every intentional action is voluntary. D. Causal determinism does not imply fatalism. E. Most voluntary actions are intentional.

C. Every intentional action is voluntary.

Explain the difference between deductive validity and soundness

Deductive Validity- If the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true. a. Ex. All women are tigers b. All tigers are men c. Therefore, all women are men Deductive Soundness- The argument is valid and the premises are in fact true. An argument is sound if: it is valid and all of its premises are true. a. Ex. Abortion is the killing of an innocent person. b. Killing innocent people is morally objectionable. c. Therefore, abortion is morally objectionable.

Explain the difference between an inductive and a deductive argument.

Deductive-The truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. It would be self-contradictory to assert the premises but deny the conclusion. a. The conclusion of a deductive argument only makes explicit what is already contained, even if implicitly, in the premises. Deductive arguments don't expand our knowledge. Inductive- if the truth of the premises supports the truth of the conclusion but doesn't guarantee it. It would not be self-contradictory to assert the premises and deny the conclusion. a. They provide us with new ideas and thus may expand our knowledge about the world in a way that is impossible for deductive arguments to achieve.

Explain the distinction between discrete space and continuous space.

Discrete Space- when there are lengths which are not divisible (indivisible lengths). If time is discrete, then there are pairs of times which are such that there is no time in between them (indivisible instants). Continuous Space- between any two points in space there is a third. A consequence of space being continuous would be that, for any length, there is such a thing as half of that length. Time- any amount of time, there is such a thing as half that time, and that in between any two moments there is another.

Infinite numbers added together must sum up to an infinite amount or total:

FALSE

What is fatalism? What distinguishes fatalism from causal determinism?

Fatalism- the view that whatever happens now and will happen in the future happens necessarily. Because the present and future is fixed, pre-ordained, our choices about what to do in a situation are inconsequential. Fatalism leaves it open whether there is any purpose guiding our fates and whether anyone knows our fates. Causal determinism- the view that every event that occurs, including human action, is entirely the result of earlier causes. Note that some of these earlier causes may be free choices.

Some claim that there is tension between God's omnipotence, his omnibenevolence, and the fact that the world contains some evil. Explain the tension.

For those who want to hold on to omnipotence and omnibenevolence usually have to reject premise 6. (6. If something is wholly good, it always eliminates as much evil as it can. Premise 11 and 2 creates tension with omnipotence and 5 with omnibenevolence.

Which solution to the paradox of constitution (or the Ship of Theseus paradox) strikes you as plausible and why? What, if anything, is problematic about your favorite solution to the paradox of constitution (or the Ship of Theseus paradox)?

For-Dimensionalism: two distinct objects can be in the same place at the same time (cohabitation). a. Claims that distinct things can have overlapping parts. i. Temporal parts-things that spread out in time have distinct temporal parts which occupy different times. Conflicts with McTaggart's A-series of time which states no event is past, present, and future.

True or False

Ice has no pair of quotes: true "Ice" has no pair of quotation marks: true It takes longer to read the Bible than to read "the Bible.": true This sentence is longer than "this sentence." :true """Ice""" has three pairs of quotation marks is: FALSE.

Which, if any, of the steps of the argument for fatalism from foreknowledge is problematic?

If it is true that I will do x tomorrow, then I cannot possibly not do x tomorrow. If God knows that I will do x tomorrow, then I am not free to do x tomorrow.

The following is a key idea in Kant's argument against infinite complexity:

It is possible to completely decompose a composite.

McTaggart claims that

McTaggart claims that temporal change is a matter of events coming into existence and going out of existence.

Explain Zeno's paradox of the moving bodies or the paradox of the arrow. What is the paradox meant to show? How can the paradox be (re)solved?

Moving Bodies/ Paradox of the Arrow- Discrete Arrow paradox- An arrow is shot from a bow. Consider an indivisible moment in time. Does the arrow move during that instant? It cannot since, if it did, the instant would be divisible. The arrow would have to be in one place for one part of the instant, and in another part for another. But if instants have parts, then they are not indivisible. If the arrow cannot move during instants, and cannot move between them, it cannot move so motion is impossible Solution- One might say that motion is just a matter of being in one place at one time, and another place at the next time. Real motion then becomes like motion in film movies, which is just a matter of projected objects being in one location on one frame of the film and another the next.

The following scenarios don't involve time travel: 1. Switching to daylight saving time 2. traveling to a different time zone 3. setting your watch ahead by 15 minutes 4. napping for an hour.

NONE

A prisoners' dilemma is a game with all of the following characteristics except one. Which one is present in a prisoners' dilemma?

Players cooperate in arriving at their strategies.

Explain Newcomb's problem.

Predictor is very good at guessing whether players are going to 1-box or 2-box. If he guesses that they are going to 2-box, he puts nothing in Box B. If he guesses that they are going to 1-box, he puts $1000 in Box B. What should you do?

Explain the argument pro and con McTaggart's premise that the A-series involves a contradiction. What, if anything, is problematic about the argument the effect that the A-series involves a contradiction?

Premise 3- Contradictory a. No event can be past, present and future b. Every event is past, present and future, c. Therefore, the A-series is contradictory. Objection: Although an event has all of the mutually incompatible position in the A-series, it doesn't have them all at once. But there is nothing contradictory about something having incompatible properties at different times. a. Argument: this objection is a prob b/c it reduces the A-theoretic statement to a b-theoretic statement.

What does the rule of dominance say? Explain why the rule of dominance recommends 2-boxing, provided that there is no backwards causation going on.

Rule of Dominance: if you are choosing between A and B, and A dominates B, and the relevant possibilities are causally independent of the choice made, you should always choose A. Stipulates there is no backwards causation. 2 boxing dominates 1-boxing, and the relevant outcomes are causally independent of the choice made.

The paradox of omnipotence assumes that

That an omnipotent being can perform any task.

McTaggart claims that

The B-series of time cannot account for temporal change since a sentence whose only temporal expressions are B-series expressions is true at all times if it is true at any time.

This sentence uses only genuine A-series expressions and is thus a tensed statement:

The Korean War started five years after Truman became president

The following is a synthetic statement:

The Washington Monument has four sides

Explain the paradox of omnipotence.

The paradox is meant to show that this notion of omnipotence is inconsistent. Even if a being can do anything, it cannot do what cannot be done; it cannot do things that are self-contradictory. Paradox: 1. Either x can create a stone which x cannot lift, or x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift. 2. If x can create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform. 3. If x cannot create a stone which x cannot lift, then, necessarily, there is at least one task which x cannot perform. 4. Hence, there is at least one task which x cannot perform. 5. If x is an omnipotent being, then x can perform any task. C. Therefore, x is not omnipotent.

State McTaggart's argument to the effect that time is unreal. Explain the arguments pro and con the premise that temporal change is possible only in the A-series.

Time is unreal: 1. Time necessarily involves change. 2. Change is possible only in the A-series. 3. The A-series involves contradiction and is therefore unreal. C. Therefore, time is unreal I believe that nothing that exists can be temporal, and that therefore time is unreal.

Explain David Lewis's distinction between external time and personal time. What is time travel?

Time travel takes place when there is a discrepancy between external time and personal time. Arrival and departure are separated by two unequal amounts of time. Personal time: is measured by the traveler's wristwatch. External time: the arrival time while time traveling is more than an hour after the departure or arrival is before the departure if he travels towards the past.

What does it mean for a statement/proposition to entail another statement/proposition?

To say that the conclusion follows validly from the premises is the same thing as saying that the premises entail the conclusion. a. "P entails q" = "q is validly deducible from p."

Explain Kant's notions of noumenon and phenomenon. Explain the main idea of his transcendental idealism. How does Kant's transcendental idealism resolve the second antinomy?

Transcendental idealism- "Everything intuited in space or time, and therefore all objects of any experience possible to us, are nothing but appearances, that is, mere representations..." a. Kant is saying that everything in space and time- and also space and time-are the way pains and colors are. They are mere appearances, dependent on being perceived and represented by minds for their existence. b. intuitive distinction b/w those parts of reality which exist independently of the mind, and those parts of reality which seem to owe their existence to their being involved in mental acts. c. Mere appearance or merely phenomenal- if a part of reality depends for its existence on being felt or perceived about by some mind. Noumena- is something whose existence does not depend on being felt or perceived by some mind. Solution to 2nd Antinomy- Every experience of something extended in space represents it as having parts, and hence as divisible. But does this experience represent it as infinitely divisible, or as having, ultimately, simple parts? Neither! This is something left open by our representations, just like the exact number of people in the stadium is left open by the visual experience.

True or False: A causal loop necessarily involves backward causation.

True

True or False: Correlation suggests causation but it doesn't prove it.

True

True or False: The ship of Theseus paradox rests on Leibniz's law and the transitivity of identity principles

True

Give two examples of valid argument forms and two examples of invalid argument forms.

Valid argument forms: a. Modus Ponens i. If p, then q (Everyone who lives in Irvine lives in California) ii. P (Alvin lives in Irvine) iii. Therefore, q (Therefore, Alvin lives in California) b. Modus Tollens i. If p, then q (If Alvin is human, he is mortal) ii. Not q (Alvin is not mortal) iii. Therefore, not p (Alvin is not human) Invalid Argument Forms: a. Affirming the Consequent: i. If p, then q -If Amelia can vote in the US, then Amelia is 18 years or older. ii. Q -Amelia is 18 years or older. iii. Therefore, p -Therefore, Amelia can vote in the US. Denying the Antecedent: i. If p, then q -If Amelia can vote in the US, then she is 18 years or older. ii. Not p -Amelia cannot vote in the US iii. Therefore, not q -Therefore, Amelia is not 18 years or older.

Explain Zeno's Achilles paradox or his racetrack paradox. What is the paradox meant to show? How can the paradox be (re)solved?

a. Achilles paradox b. Continuous c. Motion is impossible Idea: Achilles and the tortoise have a race. Tortoise has a head start because it's slow. Achilles takes some amount of time to cover a distance. Even though the tortoise is slow, it is in constant motion so Achilles never catches up to the tortoise because it takes him some finite amount of time to catch the tortoise who would have covered SOME amount of time. Solution- Our experience tells us otherwise. We couldn't work with time and space if they were continuous.

What does the rule of expected utility say? Explain why the rule of expected utility recommends 1- boxing. Explain why the restricted rule of expected utility recommends 2-boxing.

a. It is always rational to pursue the course of action with the highest expected utility. i. Since the expected utility of taking the bet in ex. Is higher than the expected utility of not taking it, it seems rational to take the bet in this case. b. Restricted utility: If the probability of an outcome O is causally independent of the choice between Act 1 and Act 2, then calculations of the expected utility of Act 1 and Act 2 must treat the probability of O as fixed. ii. The possibilities 1 and 2 will be the same for the two courses of action undertaken. And this means that the expected utility calculations will favor 2-boxing in agreement with the restricted rule of dominance. Ex. one might say that the loss of weight is a symptom, rather than a cause, of the disease. Just so, that my choosing 1-box would be a symptom, rather than a cause of the Predictor's having chosen to put $1000 in box B. On this view, 1-boxing is just as irrational as eating to decrease the odds of your having the disease.

In the context of the constitution paradox, the takeover theory is the view that ______

an object ceases to exist when its particles are rearranged. rearranging the particles of an object brings about a new object.

The point of Zeno's paradoxes

are to defend the idea that all motion is an illusion.

"All mothers are parents."

is an analytic statement

The point of Zeno's Racetrack Paradox

is that it appears to show that one cannot traverse an infinite number of finite space intervals in a finite time.

The following is a key idea in Kant's argument against ultimate simples:

since every part of a composite thing occupies space and since everything which occupies space has parts it follows that simples have parts.

In game theory, a choice that is optimal for a firm no matter what its competitors do is referred to as:

the dominant strategy

According to Zeno, Achilles encounters the following problem when racing the tortoise:

the problem that all motion involves going through an infinite number of units of space.

According to Kant, transcendental idealism

the view that we experience only appearances not things in themselves. Space and time are not properties of things in themselves but properties of our experiences.

In the context of the constitution paradox, nihilism is the view that _____

there are no composite material objects.

What is an argument?

An argument is a series of statements where the last statement supposedly follows from or is supported by the first statements. The last statement is called the conclusion and the first statements are called the premises.

When is an argument circular? Give an example of a circular argument.

An argument is circular (begging the question) when one or more of the premises relies for its truth on the truth of the conclusion Logical form: X is true because of Y. Y is true because of X. Example: i. God is the author of the Bible. ii. The Bible says that God exists. iii. Therefore, God exists.

Zeno's paradoxes take as their starting point the following question:

Are space and time continuous or discrete?

Four-dimensionalism claims that _________

D. an object can consist of parts that exist at different times

The following is an analytical statement:

Frozen water is ice.

What is Aristotle's strategy for avoiding fatalism?

He denies that future contingents have truth values.

Explain the difference between numerical and qualitative identity. Explain Leibniz's law. Explain the paradox of constitution or the Ship of Theseus paradox.

If x and y are material things which have exactly the same parts, then x=y 1. Reconstructed Ship= Original Ship 2. If x=y and y=z, then it follows that x=z 3. Transitivity of identity principle 4. Objections to existence and survival 5. Objection to no co-location= Two distinct objects never occupy the same location at the same time

"The fact that the paradox of omnipotence dissolves under closer inspection shows that the idea of omnipotence is unproblematic."

No