If P, Then Q Logical Arguments and 100% Predictability

An If, P, Then Q logical argument contains the specification for 100% predictability.

The P functions as a set of conditions which are causes: P/Conditions/Causes.

The Q functions as a set of consequences which are effects: Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s).

Thus, in the If P/Conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) logical argument, the relationship of the people/objects/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy and subject to the law of inertia and its corollaries and who/which are therefore the P/Conditions/Causes of the people/objects/events who/which are also comprised of m/e and subject to the law of inertia and its corollaries and who/which are Q/Consequences/Effects is that of Cause and Effect wherein the P/Conditions/Causes as causes cause as effects the Q/Consequences/Effects.

When the P/Conditions/Causes are precisely specified, ex. A+B+C, then the Q/Consequence/Effect, X, is 100% predictable/guaranteed.

A+B+C->X

If nX should be observed, then one of these sets of P/Conditions/Causes holds:

1. A P/Condition/Cause had been removed from the P/Conditions/Causes: A+B+(No C->nX, A+(No B)+C->nX, or (No A)+B+C->nX.
2. A P/Condition/Cause had been added to the P/Conditions/Causes: A+B+C+(Add D)->nX.
3. A P/Condition/Cause had been removed from and a P/Condition/Cause had been added to the P/Conditions/Causes: A+(No B)+C+(Add D)->nX, etc.

Thus, by observation, if the Q/Consequence/Effect X is observed, then the inference is that A+B+C are the P/Conditions/Causes; but if nX is observed, then the inference is that one of the P/Conditions/Causes sets is happened--a P/Condition/Cause had been removed, a P/Condition/Cause had been added, or a P/Condition/Cause had been removed while a P/Condition/Cause had been added.

Famous If P, Then Q Logical Argument Example:

Premise #1: If (P) this rock hits that window, then (Q) that window will break.
Premise #2: (P) This rock hit that window.
Conclusion: (Q) That window broke.

The (P) rock must have specific characteristics including size, shape, mass/weight, etc., and have specific specifications of motion including velocity, direction, angle, etc., to cause the (Q) breakage of the window, and the window must also have (P) characterisics of type of glass (or plastic), thickness, size (small is better for resisting breakage from rocks), etc.

When the (P) rock has the required characteristics and specifications of motion, and the (P) window also has the required characteristics, then the (Q) is inevitable.

When the P/Conditions/Causes are present and completely accounted for, and none are missing, and no intervening P/Conditions/Causes are present, then the Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) is (are)100% predictable and guaranteed.

This claim of fact is absolutely irrefutable.

To ask, "Yes, but what if ... ?" leads to a proposition which includes a change of the P/Conditions/Causes wherein one P/Condition/Cause is missing, another P/Condition/Cause has been added, or a P/Condition/Cause is missing while another P/Condition/Cause has been added, etc., and, therefore, there is a set of P/Conditions/Causes which does not equal the original observed set of P/Conditions/Causes.

The Laws of Logic wherein A = A and A n= B apply to the If P, Then Q logical argument.

NOTE: A = A and A n= B are called Laws of Logic and are in fact laws and not axioms because of the empirical fact that no one has ever observed a case in which A = B or A n= A.

When the precise P/Conditions/Causes of a Q/Consequence/Effect are A+B+C, then, under the Law of Logic wherein A = A, because A+B+C = A+B+C, the causal conditions of the P/Conditions/Causes are in place/happening and the Q/Consequence/Effect is happening or otherwise is 100% predictable, under A = A, because X = X.

When the P/Conditions/Causes of a Q/Consequence/Effect are not A+B+C, are nA+B+C, because a P/Condition/Cause is missing, a P/Condition/Cause is added, or a combination wherein a P/Condition/Cause is missing and a P/Condition/Cause is added, then, under A n= B, for example, A+B+C n= A+(No B)+C, the Q/Consequence/Effect is not happening or otherwise is not 100% predictable.

When natural causal relationships are described by If P/Conditions/Causes, Then Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) logical arguments, the precise specification of the causality of the P/Conditions/Causes and the Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) functions as a natural law, scientific law, etc., which cannot and never will be violated. If it appears violated, because the resulting Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) are observed to be different from the expected/predicted Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s), all that has changed is precise combination of the P/Conditions/Causes.

The causality of the original P/Conditions/Causes to the Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) has not changed, nor could it ever change without a change of the P/Conditions/Causes themselves.

Thus, the inductive reasoning method of obtaining knowledge is inviolate when conducted by an If P, Then Q logical argument and the precise Ps which have been observed to cause specific Qs are specified to be observed to be occurring or otherwise present.

There can be no case in which the P/Conditions/Causes are present and unchanged and the Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) does (do) not happen as predicted.

Thus, in the precise specifications of the P/Conditions/Causes and therefore the causes of the Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s) of an If P, Then Q logical argument we find the basis for true knowledge, the accurate description of the causality--cause and effect--between/among P/Conditions/Causes and Q/Consequence(s)/Effect(s), and the basis for 100% predictability.