Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Todd - Coggle Diagram
Todd
Todd’s semantic view treats “will” as a universal quantifier over all future branches. So, asserting SBT means “a sea battle happens in all branches.” But in Model 3, many outcomes (like a meteor strike) are possible. Since SBT isn't true in all branches, it’s false under this logic.
Todd’s view ties semantics, logic, and metaphysics closely:
-
Denying PFDF in Model 3 ensures future contingents can't be true now, preserving the open future.
Todd clearly rejects Model 1 due to its determinate outcome via PFDF. His rejection of Model 2 is less sharp, since it keeps indeterminacy but still assumes an actual branch. Todd prefers Model 3 because it's more transparent, avoids extra ontology (like an actual branch), and retains the same explanatory power as Model 2.
-
Thus, SBT is metaphysically indeterminate but logically false.
-
Model 1: One actual future, picked by PFDF. No parity.
Model 2: One actual future, but it's indeterminate. Parity exists.
Model 3 (Todd’s view): No PFDF, no actual branch. All futures in parity.
-
- Truth supervenes on being.
- Presentism
Therefore no future contingents can be true.
- A Laplacian demon with all the present facts and natural laws can still not determine a unique future..
-