For his part, Gregory just wanted to know how to define "necessarily, p" in terms of the counterfactual conditional. It took a little work, but once I got him to see that p is necessary just in case it is a counterfactual consequence of its own negation, it was a simple step to see that "necessarily, p" just in case "no matter what else were the case, p would be the case":
3 comments:
Cool office! Gregory's picture and the icons on the wall look really nice. And is that the new Mac peeking out from the bookshelf??
Well, I dunno about Gregory, but I know perfectly understand all about "necessarily, p" in terms of conterfactual conditionality. RIGHT. Phew, Jon, you SO deserve this job! Your office looks quite nice actually! Congrats. Love seeing all the pics of you guys.
Sharp eyes, Ingrid! That's Gregory's picture in the bottom right corner, and yes my new Mac peeking out. There should be a picture of the new Mac up now for all to see.
Daniela, you, too, can understand such important matters! Think of it this way: If I must procrastinate by blogging (that is, "necessarily, I procrastinate by blogging")--if that's really true--then whatever else might happen, I will procrastinate by blogging (that is, for any proposition, q, "If it were that q, then I would procrastine by blogging").
See?
Post a Comment