74 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			2.4 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
			
		
		
	
	
			74 lines
		
	
	
	
		
			2.4 KiB
		
	
	
	
		
			Markdown
		
	
	
	
	
	
---
 | 
						|
tags: [propositional-logic]
 | 
						|
---
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
# Logical indeterminacy
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
The vast majority of propositions in natural and formal logical languages are
 | 
						|
**neither
 | 
						|
[logically true](Logical_truth_and_falsity.md#logical-truth)
 | 
						|
or
 | 
						|
[logically false](Logical_truth_and_falsity.md#logical-falsity)**.
 | 
						|
This makes sense because propositions of this form are all either tautologies or
 | 
						|
contradictions and as such do not express information about the state of events
 | 
						|
in the world. We call propositions that are neither logically true or logically
 | 
						|
false, **logically indeterminate** propositions.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## Informal definition
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
A proposition is logically indeterminate if it is neither logically true or
 | 
						|
logically false. This is to say: it can be both [consistently](Consistency.md)
 | 
						|
asserted and consistently denied.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
For example the proposition:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
It is raining.
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
May be true or false thus it can it both be asserted and denied quite
 | 
						|
consistently. It is true if it actually is raining and false if it actually is
 | 
						|
not raining. There is no logical contradiction implied by saying it is raining
 | 
						|
when it isn't raining, this assertion is simply false. There is a contradiction
 | 
						|
in saying that both states obtain. Thus the proposition:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
It is raining and it is not raining.
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Cannot be consistently asserted as there is no possibility of the proposition
 | 
						|
being true. It is either raining or it isn't raining. Given the law for
 | 
						|
conjunction, both conjuncts must be true for the proposition as a whole to be
 | 
						|
true. But in the case of this proposition if one conjunct is true, the other
 | 
						|
must be false and vice versa, hence it is not possible for the proposition to be
 | 
						|
true at all. It can _only_ be false.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Contrariwise the proposition:
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
It is raining or it is not raining.
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
Cannot be consistently denied as there is no possibility of it being false. It
 | 
						|
is either raining or not raining. Given the law for disjunction, either disjunct
 | 
						|
can be true to make the proposition as a whole true. Given that it is either
 | 
						|
raining or not raining in either scenario, the proposition as a whole will be
 | 
						|
true. Therefore there is no possibility of it being false, it can _only_ be
 | 
						|
true.
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
## Formal definition
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
> A proposition P is truth-functionally indeterminate if and only if it is
 | 
						|
> neither truth-functionally true or truth-functionally false. should be avoided
 | 
						|
> in arguments, they 'prove' everything whi
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
P
 | 
						|
```
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
### Truth-table
 | 
						|
 | 
						|
| $P$ | $P$ |
 | 
						|
| --- | --- |
 | 
						|
| T   | T   |
 | 
						|
| F   | F   |
 |