Peter Van Inwagen's Determinism

Determinism: Inwagen defines this as follows.

a) For each instant, there is a proposition that expresses the state of the world at that instant.

b) If A and B are propositions expressing states of the world, then the conjunction of A ^ laws of nature entail B.

Thus, there's only one possible future.

Two key arguments:

1. Consequence argument - the consequences of the past determine the future

2. Mind argument - free will not compatible with indeterminism

Analysis of 'can': 'X could have rendered [proposition] false'.

Inwagen's Argument:

Inwagen wants to show that if determinism is correct, X could not have done otherwise.

Eg. A judge who had to raise his han at time T to prevent an execution - after rational deliberation, J does not raise his hand.

T = time when judge raises his hand.

T0 = time before J's birth.

P0 = state of the world at T0.

P = state of the world at time T.

L = All laws of nature.

1. Determinism is true. So, P0 and  L entail P.

2. Had J raised his hand at T, P would be false.

3. L is true. If J could averaised his hand a time T, he could have rendered P false.

4. Because P0 + L entail P…