= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RobinZ comments on Diseased thinking: dissolving questions about disease - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (343)
...
Ganapati, the counterfactual does not happen. That's what "counterfactual" means - something which is contrary to fact.
However, the laws of nature in a deterministic universe are specified well enough to calculate the future from the present, and therefore should be specified well enough to calculate the future* from some modified present*, even if no such present* occurs. The answer to "what would happen if I added a glider here to this frame of a Conway's Life game?" has a defined answer, even though no such glider will be present in the original world.
Why would you be interested in something that can't occur in the real world?
In the "free will" case? Because I want the most favorable option to be factual, and in order to prove that, I need to be able to deduce the consequences of the unfavorable options.
What?
Not prove, implement. You are not rationalizing the best option as being the actual one, you are making it so. When you consider all those options, you don't know which ones of them are contrary to fact, and which ones are not. You never consider something you know to be counter-factual.
Yes, that's a much better phrasing than mine.
(p.s. you realize that I am having an argument with Ganapati about the compatibility of determinism and free will in this thread, right?)
Actually you brought in the counterfactual argument to attempt to explain the significance (or "purpose") of an approach called consequentialism (as opposed to others) in a determined universe.
Allow me the privilege of stating my own intentions.
You brought up the counterfactualism example right here, so I assumed it was in response to that post.
I'm sorry, do you have an objection to the reading of "counterfactual" elaborated in this thread?
Sorry for the delay in replying. No, I don't have any objection to the reading of the counterfactual. However I fail to connect it to the question I posed.
In a determined universe, the future is completely determined whether any conscious entity in it can predict it or not. No actions, considerations, beliefs of any entity have any more significance on the future than those of another simply because they cannot alter it.
Determinism, like solipsism, is a logically consistent system of belief. It cannot be proven wrong anymore than solpsism can be, since the only "evidence" disproving it, if any, lies with the entity believing it, not outside.
Do you feel that you are a purposeless entity whose actions and beliefs have no significance whatsoever on the future? If so, your feelings are very much consistent with your belief in determinism. If not, it may be time to take into consideration the evidence in the form of your feelings.
Thank you all for your time!