0

Are the propositions "Everything happens for a reason", and "Nothing happens without a reason" logically equivalent?

3
  • i think the answer you have is fine, though you may want to be careful you don't equivocate 'reason' or indeed 'nothing' when interpreting it
    – user46524
    Jul 4 '20 at 19:07
  • Add a truth table to your post for each statement. Are the two tables identical? Jul 4 '20 at 21:25
  • In classical logic, yes. ¬∃¬R(x) is obtained from∀x R(x) by applying the De Morgan's law for quantifiers, which works in both directions.
    – Conifold
    Jul 5 '20 at 0:16
1

We may introduce two predicates, thinghood, τ(x), and happening for a reason, ρ(x). Then we can translate the statements into the standard first-order language as follows:

‘Everything happens for a reason’

∀x(τ(x) → ρ(x)) ↔ ∀x(¬τ(x) ∨ ρ(x))

‘Nothing happens without a reason’

¬∃x(τ(x) ∧ ¬ρ(x)) ↔ ∀x(¬τ(x) ∨ ρ(x))

We see that they are logically equivalent. However, the translation hinges on the idea of thinghood, and the related issue of quantifying over absolute generality is a matter of metaphysical dispute.

5
  • Thinghood... I don't think so.
    – Mr. White
    Jul 4 '20 at 18:24
  • why not @ClydeFrog ? how else are you going to answer the question?
    – user46524
    Jul 4 '20 at 19:05
  • Whatever a good answer might be, it won't need "thinghood" to reformulate events and reasons for events.
    – Mr. White
    Jul 4 '20 at 19:38
  • Doesn’t τ(x) ∧ ¬ρ(x) cover things that did not happen at all, whether with a reason or not? Jul 7 '20 at 9:38
  • @user3840170 The task of the thinghood predicate is, so to speak, to reduce 'everything' and 'nothing' to a common denominator; from a philosophical point of view, what to ascribe it to is directly related to one's metaphysical presumptions. One might ascribe thinghood to an idea, a possibility, etc. Whatever it is, one has to specify the same domain for both 'everything' and 'nothing'. Jul 7 '20 at 12:27
0

1: Everything happens for a reason 2:nothing happens without a reason.

In 1, maybe Reason is there but nothing happens but in 2 there has to be a reason for things to happen.

I definitely see a difference between the two. So I translated the propositions into French and,again, perceived a difference between the two: 1 (il y a une raison pour tout) has a connotation of explanation. No randomness but 2 (rien ne se passe sans une bonne raison) indicates that there has to be a reason for things to happen.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.