Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cornell.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!rej From: rej@cornell.UUCP (Ralph Johnson) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy Subject: Re: time Message-ID: <6686@cornell.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Mar-84 10:45:48 EST Article-I.D.: cornell.6686 Posted: Fri Mar 2 10:45:48 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 3-Mar-84 22:06:33 EST References: <1382@mit-eddie.UUCP> Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept. Lines: 22 Here is a proof of determinism. Let p be the proposition "On March 4 I will dye my hair green." By the law of the excluded middle, (p or not p) is true. Suppose p. Then if I do not dye my hair green there will be a contradiction, therefore I HAVE NO CHOICE but to dye my hair green. Suppose not p. Then if I dye my hair green there will be a contradiction, therefore I HAVE NO CHOICE but to refrain from dyeing my hair green. Conclusion, I HAVE NO CHOICE ... determinism is true. Now, I don't believe this proof. The problem is with using the law of excluded middle to compare a future event with a current event. However, I think this proof is just as valid as the ones claiming that Omniscience implies Determinism. The problem is that these ideas are very difficult to reason about. (For those who are confused, net.religion has been engulfed in a long and seemingly futile discussion of the premise that Omni => Det.) (This "proof" may also be used as an argument for constructive logic.) Ralph Johnson rej@cornell decvax!cornell!rej