What is "metaphysical contingency"?
I have always thought is something is metaphysically contingent is simply means that something, a state of affairs, MAY be the case. Tomorrow I may stub my foot on a nail and feel pain. This happening is metaphysically contingent. It is not a fortiori possible.
However, I am reading (or attempting to) read a paper by Braddon-Mitchel now, and he talks of "no-futurism", "eternalism" and all these other concepts in relation to metaphysical contingency, and, to be frank, I am confused.
However, I am reading (or attempting to) read a paper by Braddon-Mitchel now, and he talks of "no-futurism", "eternalism" and all these other concepts in relation to metaphysical contingency, and, to be frank, I am confused.
Comments (11)
If you post a specific text then others might be able to comment.
it is one of the key concepts he frequently refers to... thanks!
Murder, essentially a causal argument, is metaphysically contingent on causality.
My two cents!
:snicker:
Because when you misbehave in class the teacher says: "Now, now!" It's a simple matter of classroom discipline. Some teachers say "Now, then!", but their theory is quite incoherent in my view.
That's right. More precisely: x is metahysically contingent = possibly*(x) &possibly*(~x)
*referring to metaphysical possibility = actual possibility, not merely epistemically possible or conceptually possible
[Quote]Tomorrow I may stub my foot on a nail and feel pain.[/quote]
It depends: does the universe evolve deterministically? If yes, then there is exactly one metaphysically possible outcome. We're ignorant of the future, so we don't know which, but this entails epistemic possibility, not metaphysical possibility.
Absent a Deus ex machina, personal existence is experientially contingent because it does not have to be.
That sort of argument is for recalcitrants. Before then, an effective teacher will have used The Eye. Under that unyielding gaze the more amenable students will develop an effective understanding of both The Now and The Other.
It is. But that's the fault of people who insist on using ill-defined fundamental concepts in a perverse manner to confuse themselves.