HiDaniel!

I'malawyer,notalogician,butIunderstoodwhatyoumeanthenceIwrotethatyouweremisrepresenting
myargument.Thetrickeryofyour"refutation"isprettyevident:youcannotassumethat"Aisoftheform
necessarilyB",sinceby"possible"Imean"noncontradictoryandnotnecessary",asIalreadyclarified.
Definition1says:xispossibleiffxdoesnotentailacontradiction.Thereisnothingindefinition1that
preventsapossiblethingfromalsobeingnecessary.Allowingforthesakeofargumentthatwecan
analysepossibilityintermsoftheabsenceofcontradiction,Definition1iswhatweshouldgofor.
Definition2says:xisimpossibleiffxentailsacontradiction.(Thisdefinitionisredundantitfollows
directlyfromDefinition1.)
Definition3says:xisnecessaryiff~xentailsacontradiction.(Again,thisdefinitionisredundant:itfollows
directlyfromDefinition1,togetherwiththestandardequivalencebetween"necessary"and"notpossibly
not".)
IfyouwanttoreplaceDefinition1with
Definition1*:xispossibleiff(1)xdoesnotentailacontradictionand(2)xisnotnecessary
thenyouwillgetaconsequentrevisionofDefinition2:
Definition2*:xisimpossibleiffeither(1)xentailsacontradictionor(2)xisnecessary.
ButDefinition2*isabsurd:nothingthatisnecessaryisimpossible.
Soitisnottruethatyouhaveclarifiedhowitcanbethat"possible"means"noncontradictionandnot
necessary".
Ofcourse,thereisanothertermtobedefined:
Definition8:xiscontingentiffitispossiblethatxanditispossiblethat~x
GivenDefinition8andDefinition1,wecaninfer:
Theorem1:xiscontingentiffneitherxnor~xentailsacontradiction.
Definition7says:BisanoppositeofAiffitisnotpossiblethatAandB.(Itfollowsfromthisthat
thenegationofAisanoppositeofA.Ifyouwanttosaythat~AistheoppositeofA,thenwedon'tneedthe
definition:wearealreadymakinguseofthenotionofnegation.)
ItfollowsstraightforwardlyfromTheorem1thatAiscontingentiff~Aiscontingent.However,itdoesnot
followfromTheorem1andDefinition7that,ifAiscontingent,andBisanoppositeofA,thenBis
contingent.Inparticular,ifBisimpossible,then,whileA&Bisimpossible,Bisnotcontingent.
So,ifyourAxiom1isreinterpretedintermsofcontingency,wehavetorejectit:itisnotnecessarilytrue
thatanoppositeofsomethingthatiscontingentiscontingent.
And,asIhavealreadyshownandasyouseemtoagreeifAxiom1isinterpretedintermsofpossibility
(asordinarilyunderstood),thenwealsohavetorejectit,becauseitissubjecttocounterexamplesofthe
kindthatIgavepreviously.
Insum:evenifweaccepttheclaimrejectedprettymuchuniversallybycontemporaryprofessional
philosophersthatxispossiblejustincasexdoesnotentailacontradictionweshouldstillrejectyour
Axiom1.
Proposition1says:Anyuniverseistheoppositeofnothingness.Thisrequiressomeinterpretation.
Supposeweacceptthat

Definition5*:xcontainsauniverseiffxcontainsamaximalfusionofmassenergy.
Definition4*:xisemptyiffxcontainsnomassenergy
Itfollowsfromthesedefinitionsthatitisnotpossibleboththatxcontainsauniverseandthatxisempty.
(I'llnowtakethisitisnotpossibleboththatxcontainsauniverseandthatxisemptyasanacceptable
statementofProposition1.)
Proposition2says:itispossiblethatsomethingisempty.
Youtrytoprovethisasfollows:
Anyuniverseistheoppositeofnothingness(byProposition1).Theoppositeofwhatispossibleisalsopossible(by
Axiom1).Anynoncontradictoryuniverseispossible(byDefinition1).Therefore,nothingnessispossible.
Proposition1givesusthatitisnotpossibleboththat@containsauniverseandthat@isempty.Since
thereisauniverse,weknowthatitispossiblethat@containsauniverse.(Whateverisactualispossible.)
But,fromthesetwoclaimsthatitisnotpossibleboththat@containsauniverseandthat@isempty,
andthatitispossiblethat@containsauniverseitsimplydoesnotfollowthatitispossiblethat@is
empty.(Moreover,aswehavealreadyseenwecannotappealtoAxiom1tobridgethegap,becauseAxiom
1isfalse.)
Cheers,
Graham
ProfessorGrahamOppy
SchoolofPhilosophical,HistoricalandInternationalStudies
MenziesBuilding
20Chancellor'sWalk
MonashUniversityVIC3800