We know the piece of wood can't go in both directions, therefore, if it goes A, then it can't also go B.

Ok, let's assume it's a person going down a raft. The person can either go left or right. That doesn't change anything, does it?

a)If A must happen, then B can't happen.
b)If B can't happen, then we can't do B.
c)If A must happen, then we must be the case that we will do A.

Here A is "the person on the raft goes left" and B is "the person on the raft goes right."

Yes, it does, as a piece of wood can't decide whether to go to the left (A), or to the right B, however, a person on a raft has the freewill to decide to go A or to go B.

a) If this person on the raft decides to go A, then B can't happen, solely on the basis that the person on the raft has chosen to go A. The person on the raft can't do both A and B at the same time.

b) If the person on the raft chooses A, then B can't happen.

c) If the person on the raft chose A, then A must happen. And, yes, if the person on the raft chose A, then A is what the person on the raft will do.

Progress.

Let me try filling in things for A and B:

a)If the event that the person on the raft goes left must happen, then the event that the person on the raft goes right can't happen.
b)If the event that the person on the raft goes right can't happen, then the person can't go to the right.
c)If the event that the person on the raft goes left must happen, then it must be the case that the person on the raft goes left.

These statements are all true, aren't they?



Note:There's no need to bring in free will here or choice; they have nothing to do with these questions. Sure a person can influence the raft, but so what? These statements have nothing to do with *why* the raft goes one way or the other, just whether the conclusions from the given premises follow, none of which involve choice or free will.

Hope so. Daryl is being responsive, which is nice.

If something "must" happen or if something "cannot" happen, why, then, is it necessary to inquire about other options? The equation does not elicit questions regarding other options. But to answer your question - If, for whatever reason, "B" cannot happen, then "B" cannot happen. So what? What did we learn? Even a 4 year old child, like Thomas mentioned, can understand it.

Yeah, MM. It's amazing that it takes so many posts to get agreement on such a simple thing to see.

Tom,

Where are you going with all of this?

What is the bottom line?

Well get there Daryl. I'm trying to set a foundation.

Actually I thought of another step I could have introduced in between my previous post and the one before that. We've agreed that in the case of a piece of wood floating down a river that:

If the event that the wood will go left must happen, then the event that the wood will go right can't happen.

Now let's say, introducing people into the equation, that the people are lying on the wood, or raft, but not influencing it in any way. They are simply along for the ride. You would agree that the following would be true, right?

If the event that the wood (or raft) will go left must happen, then the event that the wood will go right can't happen.

Ok, now introduce the possibility of the person on the raft influencing the raft. I would maintain this doesn't change the veracity of the statement in the least. That is, the following is still true:

If the event that the wood (or raft) will go left must happen, then the event that the wood will go right can't happen.

If you will agree to these points, I can get to the bottom line. If you disagree, then I think it would be good to iron that out. At least we can find out what exactly it is that we are disagreeing about, which I think would be helpful.