By the principle
of bivalence-
we now know

That if I wake up
or don’t wake up
tomorrow

That is
P
or not P

Then either
must be true
today

And hence
our fates are sealed.

Mikael, without jumping onto Wikipedia, let me tell you what your poem makes me think, based on what I think I know--for what it's worth.
This sounds like quantum theory stuff to me, and I always thought both P and not P are equally true and coexist in the future, though I don't know whether they're supposed to still coexist in the past or not. So the "fate" issue becomes moot to me, though I am interested in what happens to "not P" once you do wake up. So...if that's of any help, that's what runs thru one reader's mind, R.
-Tom

thank you Tom; perhaps this is too obscure. What if changed into this:

By the principle
of bivalence-
we now know

That if I wake up
or don’t wake up
tomorrow

That is
P
or not P

Then either
must be true
today

and so nothing
I can do
will change that fact

hence

-----------------

our fates are sealed.

True in hindsight only, though. Right? Interesting deduction.

Joe

its really a bogus deduction; but it's a real common "failure", stemming from Aristotle. What really can be said that it is necessary THAT p or not p, but from that it doesn't follow that either it is necessary that p, or it is necessary that not P (it is necessary that there either is or isnt a fly in my soup, but just because there is one it doesnt make THAT necessary; I can remove the fly from my soup)

I don't know, man. It's beyond me. I don't see why tomorrow's P or not P is already decided today. But then I don't understand elementary principles, either, of economics or astrophysics! Tom

lol it's not you, it's surely me who is explaining poorly here. In either case the poem shouldn't need basic logical knowledge to work, so that's a sign i'm not doing it right.

The argument for logical fatalism is like this:

1. the rule of excluded middle (a logical rule) says that EITHER x or not x, but not both (that is a statement can't be both true and false in the same sense; it can't be both true and not true that I am now writing here)
2. Either I wake up tomorrow or I don't wake up tomorrow (x or not x)
3. If I wake up tomorrow, then it must be true today that I will wake up tomorrow
4. If I don't wake up tomorrow, the same applies; it must be true today
--------------------
5. hence regardless of what's true today (say that I will in fact wake up tomorrow), there's nothing I can do to change that. If it's true that I will wake up tomorrow, then no matter how many sleepingpills I take or how many times I try to kill myself, I will still wake up tomorrow (and if I succeed in killing myself, that only proves that the other statement was true all along)

It's no good because as I said, just because it is necessarily true that: there either is or isn't a fly in my soup (x or not x), it doesn't follow that just because there is one, that it MUST be so. I can pick the fly out of my soup. What is necessary is that something is EITHER the case or not the case, not that whatever is the case is necessary... If that makes any sense lol.

I'm assuming that the same reason you say the reasoning is false is why I think the reasoning is false. a=a. tom