Problem of future contingents

Future contingent propositions (or simply, future contingents) are statements about states of affairs in the future that are contingent: neither necessarily true nor necessarily false.

Aristotle: if a sea-battle will not be fought tomorrow, then it was also true yesterday that it will not be fought. But all past truths are necessary truths. Therefore, it is not possible that the battle will be fought

In general, if something will not be the case, it is not possible for it to be the case.

----------------

Aristotle solved the problem by asserting that the principle of bivalence found its exception in this paradox of the sea battles: in this specific case, what is impossible is that both alternatives can be possible at the same time: either there will be a battle, or there won't. Both options can't be simultaneously taken. Today, they are neither true nor false; but if one is true, then the other becomes false. According to Aristotle, it is impossible to say today if the proposition is correct: we must wait for the contingent realisation (or not) of the battle, logic realises itself afterwards:

One of the two propositions in such instances must be true and the other false, but we cannot say determinately that this or that is false, but must leave the alternative undecided. One may indeed be more likely to be true than the other, but it cannot be either actually true or actually false. It is therefore plain that it is not necessary that of an affirmation and a denial, one should be true and the other false. For in the case of that which exists potentially, but not actually, the rule which applies to that which exists actually does not hold good.

So either an event can or can't happen in the future but they both can't happen at the same time. Obviously that is logical. Which then moves me to a point of my own belief. That all events will or will not happen. Everything in life is 50/50 (If I go to purchase a lottery ticket then fundamentally I have a 50/50 chance of winning) It will either happen or it won't.

Balance of probabilities and odds of the numbers I select coming out can also be calculated, but when you get down to the brass tacks it is purely I will or won't win the lottery. Things you have to do though are to at least buy a lottery ticket. It is no good to say I hope for a windfall but then not put yourself into a position to have a gain.

In the case of time travel, and the case of the battle at sea. It would be possible to have two separate time lines in which on one time line no sea battle took place, and in the other time line a sea battle took place. But impossible to have both scenarios in the same time line. Basically if one event happens its opposite can not. But that is not to say it doesn't happen in another time line. Which leads onto what I was saying yesterday that the SLIDERS theory of you would go into a time line in which those other events had happened. Unlike the The Grandfather Paradox which assumes by you going back in time you have erased the reason as to why you would go back in time and thus it wouldn't happen.

Presumably it would be also interesting to look at the idea, that you may get rid of Hitler but someone else rises up in his place. Would you by killing Hitler then not stopped the Nazis but simply altered the events that they occurred and you may even fashioned an alternative ending, where as ultimately Hitler lost would killing Hitler allow someone else to take charge whom would win. (Everything seems to go back to the nazis-but it was the idea in the Grandfather Paradox of a situation which folks would want to correct)

Events in the future are not in my mind predetermined, I do feel you limit your chance of something happening by the choices you make, but as this problem of future contingents suggests. Something will or won't happen. Both things can't happen at the same time. We can only ever can be in one time line so we should make the best of what we have.