Can we have knowledge of the future?

[Bork]

Nothing that is red all over is green all over.

Its logical form is: Something that has property X cannot have property Y.

You can make substitutions which make this true and which make it false.
It is NOT true because of its form. It is not a logical tautology.

You seem to be confused about what logical form is so I will provide you with a couple links.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-form/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/

The above is completely tangential to the OP's question. The fact remains if you only accept deductive justification for knowledge then you better be an almost absolute epistemological skeptic. Almost every belief we form is the result of induction.

[peritonlogon]

The statement was that no logical form makes it so, not just tautology. The fact of the matter is that, as I said, this statement is simply a specific example of the logical rule of non-contradiction. Simply to state that things won't be contradictory in the future isn't really a deduction a of the future, only a deduction of logic. I'd write a proof, but I don't think it's worth my time.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
The statement was that no logical form makes it, so not just tautology.

[/ QUOTE ] You still dont know what logical form means and ignored my links which would have been helpful in this area.

Nothing can be both X all over and Y all over is not an instance of Nothing can be (X and not-X).

Do you believe its contradictory for something to be red all over and fuzzy all over? Its the same logical form as the statement you are claiming is an instance of a simple contradiction.

The contradiction does not come from merely the logical form but from the logical form in conjunction with the concept of colors.

[ QUOTE ]

Simply to state that things won't be contradictory in the future isn't really a deduction a of the future, only a deduction of logic. I'd write a proof, but I don't think it's worth my time.

[/ QUOTE ] Well first it requires a deduction using logic and the concept of color to come to the conclusion that something that is red all over and green all over is impossible. Then you validly infer that necessarily impossible things things are impossible in the future. So yes you use logic in your deduction, but you certainly can make necessarily true statements about future states of affairs. I would really like to see your proof to the contrary.