Well, as far as I can tell attempts to understand counterfactuals have taken us to logical counterfactuals at which point we’ve become stuck.
Hmmm.
You have shown that real counterfactuals depend on assumptions about causality and so on .. about how the universe works. But logical counterfactuals should not have their problem, because they are explicitly not supposed to represent anything real.
In previous discussions, it turns out that the problem of logical counterfactuals has three solutions:
You would face certain paradoxes if you had perfect insight into your own decision-making , but realistically , you don’t.
You would face certain paradoxes if you had perfect knowledge of the world you are embedded in, and also tried to maintain a sincere belief in a counterfactual state of affairs. But you realistically, you can’t have perfect knowledge of the world.
If 1 or 2 somehow fail to hold, you can always entertain the counterfactual in a mental compartment or sandbox, separate from your knowledge of the world and yourself.
Hmmm.
You have shown that real counterfactuals depend on assumptions about causality and so on .. about how the universe works. But logical counterfactuals should not have their problem, because they are explicitly not supposed to represent anything real.
In previous discussions, it turns out that the problem of logical counterfactuals has three solutions:
You would face certain paradoxes if you had perfect insight into your own decision-making , but realistically , you don’t.
You would face certain paradoxes if you had perfect knowledge of the world you are embedded in, and also tried to maintain a sincere belief in a counterfactual state of affairs. But you realistically, you can’t have perfect knowledge of the world.
If 1 or 2 somehow fail to hold, you can always entertain the counterfactual in a mental compartment or sandbox, separate from your knowledge of the world and yourself.