2 added 86 characters in body
source | link

Even without involving possible-world semantics, this is just an equivocation. English is really bad about the locations of negations in modal constructions.

Worst case: "You may not do that" means two completely different things depending upon the timing of the delivery -- 1) that you are not allowed, or 2) that you cannot be expected -- to 'do that'.

You need something more rigid to separate the ideas that A might possibly have be false, and that it is false that A might possibly behave been true. Once you separate those, it is kind of clear that there is no contradiction with the idea that A might possibly have been false, even when it is true.

From one philological take, there is a good reason that ourEnglish subjunctives expressing possibilities use 'would', 'should' or 'might', the past tenses of the words 'will', 'shall' and 'may', which express different conditions on predicting the future (for instance, doing so certainly, certainly if proper social rules are followed, or uncertainly). Possibility is not a state of reality, it is the potential future of a past state of reality. And even when used of the present, it is implicitly future perfect in tense.

In that sense, there is no way in which you can have both possibility and eternality in the same epistemology. If anyone can predict the future, things are possible only if they happen.

Even without involving possible-world semantics, this is just an equivocation. English is really bad about the locations of negations in modal constructions.

Worst case: "You may not do that" means two completely different things depending upon the timing of the delivery -- 1) that you are not allowed, or 2) that you cannot be expected -- to 'do that'.

You need something more rigid to separate the ideas that A might possibly have be false, and that it is false that A might possibly be true. Once you separate those, it is kind of clear that there is no contradiction with the idea that A might possibly have been false, even when it is true

From one philological take, there is a good reason that our subjunctives use 'would', 'should' or 'might', the past tenses of the words 'will', 'shall' and 'may', which express different conditions on predicting the future (for instance, doing so certainly, certainly if proper social rules are followed, or uncertainly). Possibility is not a state of reality, it is the potential future of a past state of reality.

In that sense, there is no way in which you can have both possibility and eternality in the same epistemology. If anyone can predict the future, things are possible only if they happen.

Even without involving possible-world semantics, this is just an equivocation. English is really bad about the locations of negations in modal constructions.

Worst case: "You may not do that" means two completely different things depending upon the timing of the delivery -- 1) that you are not allowed, or 2) that you cannot be expected -- to 'do that'.

You need something more rigid to separate the ideas that A might possibly have be false, and that it is false that A might possibly have been true. Once you separate those, it is kind of clear that there is no contradiction with the idea that A might possibly have been false, even when it is true.

From one philological take, there is a good reason that English subjunctives expressing possibilities use 'would', 'should' or 'might', the past tenses of the words 'will', 'shall' and 'may', which express different conditions on predicting the future (for instance, doing so certainly, certainly if proper social rules are followed, or uncertainly). Possibility is not a state of reality, it is the potential future of a past state of reality. And even when used of the present, it is implicitly future perfect in tense.

In that sense, there is no way in which you can have both possibility and eternality in the same epistemology. If anyone can predict the future, things are possible only if they happen.

1
source | link

Even without involving possible-world semantics, this is just an equivocation. English is really bad about the locations of negations in modal constructions.

Worst case: "You may not do that" means two completely different things depending upon the timing of the delivery -- 1) that you are not allowed, or 2) that you cannot be expected -- to 'do that'.

You need something more rigid to separate the ideas that A might possibly have be false, and that it is false that A might possibly be true. Once you separate those, it is kind of clear that there is no contradiction with the idea that A might possibly have been false, even when it is true

From one philological take, there is a good reason that our subjunctives use 'would', 'should' or 'might', the past tenses of the words 'will', 'shall' and 'may', which express different conditions on predicting the future (for instance, doing so certainly, certainly if proper social rules are followed, or uncertainly). Possibility is not a state of reality, it is the potential future of a past state of reality.

In that sense, there is no way in which you can have both possibility and eternality in the same epistemology. If anyone can predict the future, things are possible only if they happen.