One belief in philosophy is the denial of the existence of free will. Though this idea may seem absurd, it has its adherents. One attempt to prove the concept is called the problem of logical fatalism.[1] First, a couple of logical principles should be introduced. One of them is the law of excluded middle, which states for every proposition P, either P is true or Not P is true. For example, either it is possible for me to drink root beer or it is not possible for me to drink root beer. That would exclude all possibilities. Another logical principle is called the law of noncontradiction, which says that something cannot simultaneously be and not be of a specified kind or quantity.[2] In terms of proposition P, the Law says that it is impossible for both P and Not P to be true. For instance, its not possible for my hand to have five fingers and not to have five fingers at the same time. (Ironically, this law is also known as the law of condradiction!).[3] Now consider the proposition, You will drink a root beer tomorrow. According to the law of excluded middle, then either you will drink a root beer tomorrow or you will not. Combining the law of excluded middle with the law of noncontradiction, we can start on this chain of reasoning:
Actually, this kind of reasoning can be applied to any future tense proposition that involves you doing something. As a result, it seems that you are not free to choose in any future situation at all. Hence, there is the so-called problem of logical fatalism.
A few notes on some terminology: a valid argument just means that, if all the premises are true, then we are 100% sure that the conclusion is correct also. (Note that valid arguments arent necessarily factual, they are only true if all the premises are correct.) A valid argument with all true premises is called a sound argument. An invalid argument is where you can have all the premises be true and still have a false conclusion. So what is wrong with the problem of logical fatalism? Is the argument valid? If it is valid, which of the premises is false? Is the argument invalid? If so, why? The exact flaw in the problem of logical fatalism is subtle enough not too be seen at first glance. Can you figure it out? (Try figuring it out yourself before moving on!)
