77 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
77 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
tags:
|
||
|
|
- propositional-logic
|
||
|
|
- logic
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Logical indeterminacy
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The vast majority of propositions in natural and formal logical languages are
|
||
|
|
**neither
|
||
|
|
[logically true](Logical_truth_and_falsity.md#logical-truth)
|
||
|
|
or
|
||
|
|
[logically false](Logical_truth_and_falsity.md#logical-falsity)**.
|
||
|
|
This makes sense because propositions of this form are all either tautologies or
|
||
|
|
contradictions and as such do not express information about the state of events
|
||
|
|
in the world. We call propositions that are neither logically true or logically
|
||
|
|
false, **logically indeterminate** propositions.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Informal definition
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
A proposition is logically indeterminate if it is neither logically true or
|
||
|
|
logically false. This is to say: it can be both [consistently](Consistency.md)
|
||
|
|
asserted and consistently denied.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
For example the proposition:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
It is raining.
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
May be true or false thus it can it both be asserted and denied quite
|
||
|
|
consistently. It is true if it actually is raining and false if it actually is
|
||
|
|
not raining. There is no logical contradiction implied by saying it is raining
|
||
|
|
when it isn't raining, this assertion is simply false. There is a contradiction
|
||
|
|
in saying that both states obtain. Thus the proposition:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
It is raining and it is not raining.
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Cannot be consistently asserted as there is no possibility of the proposition
|
||
|
|
being true. It is either raining or it isn't raining. Given the law for
|
||
|
|
conjunction, both conjuncts must be true for the proposition as a whole to be
|
||
|
|
true. But in the case of this proposition if one conjunct is true, the other
|
||
|
|
must be false and vice versa, hence it is not possible for the proposition to be
|
||
|
|
true at all. It can _only_ be false.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Contrariwise the proposition:
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
It is raining or it is not raining.
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Cannot be consistently denied as there is no possibility of it being false. It
|
||
|
|
is either raining or not raining. Given the law for disjunction, either disjunct
|
||
|
|
can be true to make the proposition as a whole true. Given that it is either
|
||
|
|
raining or not raining in either scenario, the proposition as a whole will be
|
||
|
|
true. Therefore there is no possibility of it being false, it can _only_ be
|
||
|
|
true.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
## Formal definition
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
> A proposition P is truth-functionally indeterminate if and only if it is
|
||
|
|
> neither truth-functionally true or truth-functionally false. should be avoided
|
||
|
|
> in arguments, they 'prove' everything whi
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
P
|
||
|
|
```
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
### Truth-table
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
| $P$ | $P$ |
|
||
|
|
| --- | --- |
|
||
|
|
| T | T |
|
||
|
|
| F | F |
|