Is this a fallacy of composition?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Matthias123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Matthias123

Guest
  1. ◊(~α•(~α⊃~B)) • ◊(~Β•(~Β⊃~C)) → ◊((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C)))
  2. ◊~((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C)))
Given ~α and ~α then ~B, and ~B and ~B then ~C implies that it is possibly the cause that ~α that ~α then ~B and ~B and ~B then ~C is true, then it’s negation is also possible. Which means that if all possibilities are actualized, ◊((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C))) will not exist at one time.

So if it is possible that α could not exist, and that if α is the sufficient cause of B, then then the nonexistence of α would result in the non-existence of B, and this is true for not just singular entities, but multiple entities at the same time, this results in these multiple entities, given that all potentialities are actualized, will at one time be not.
 
Also say that we have a contingent entity that is possible to be not, and it is also possible that this contingent entities does not generate another contingent entity during it’s existence so that ◊~α•~◊(α⊃C) – it is possible for α to be not and it is possible for α not to imply C. Say also that we have have another contingent entity B and that the same applies ◊~B•~◊(α⊃E). So that we have the proposition (◊~α)•◊~(α⊃C)•(◊~B)•(◊~α⊃E). Can we use the distributive axiom to say that ◊(~α•~α⊃C•~B•~α⊃E) ) given that all possibilities are actualized, at one time (~α•~α⊃C•~B•~α⊃E)?
 
I am unable to respond due to unfamiliarity with those symbols. 😦

I’m guessing some of them are substitutes for = / ±
 
Matthias123 said:
  1. ◊(~α•(~α⊃~B)) • ◊(~Β•(~Β⊃~C)) → ◊((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C)))
  2. ◊~((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C)))
Given ~α and ~α then ~B, and ~B and ~B then ~C implies that it is possibly the cause that ~α that ~α then ~B and ~B and ~B then ~C is true, then it’s negation is also possible. Which means that if all possibilities are actualized, ◊((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C))) will not exist at one time.

So if it is possible that α could not exist, and that if α is the sufficient cause of B, then then the nonexistence of α would result in the non-existence of B, and this is true for not just singular entities, but multiple entities at the same time, this results in these multiple entities, given that all potentialities are actualized, will at one time be not.
Click to expand...
What has encouraged you to use symbols? There are some other posters who are in the habit of using them and its really beginning to annoy me. You will gain zero answers using symbols like that. It is unnecessary and rude.:mad:

Destroy this habit now!!!

I am mad in the nicest possible way of course.🙂
 
Matthias123 said:
  1. ◊(~α•(~α⊃~B)) • ◊(~Β•(~Β⊃~C)) → ◊((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C)))
  2. ◊~((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C)))
Given ~α and ~α then ~B, and ~B and ~B then ~C implies that it is possibly the cause that ~α that ~α then ~B and ~B and ~B then ~C is true, then it’s negation is also possible. Which means that if all possibilities are actualized, ◊((~α•(~α⊃~B)) • (~Β•(~Β⊃~C))) will not exist at one time.

So if it is possible that α could not exist, and that if α is the sufficient cause of B, then then the nonexistence of α would result in the non-existence of B, and this is true for not just singular entities, but multiple entities at the same time, this results in these multiple entities, given that all potentialities are actualized, will at one time be not.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you’re going to have to be a little more specific. It seems you are working on a specific argument that we might be familiar with. What is it, what’s your purpose? Giving us some more info may help figure out what you’re trying to do and follow along better.

And as with the fallacy of composition in general, even though the structure might be there, it does not mean it is committed since you might have proper justification. Which means we need to know details and not just structure.
 
MindOverMatter said:
What has encouraged you to use symbols? There are some other posters who are in the habit of using them and its really beginning to annoy me. You will gain zero answers using symbols like that. It is unnecessary and rude.:mad:

Destroy this habit now!!!

I am mad in the nicest possible way of course.🙂
Click to expand...
Of course you mean that it is ~◊ to use symbols. 😃

But I agree with you. It’s sometimes a headache because we don’t usually think like that. And in this specific case it is most definitely a hinderence since we **need **to know what the letters represent, not just the structure to figure out if the composition fallacy was committed (correct me if I’m wrong).

peace,
Michael
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top