It is something like why ask about time travel if time doesn’t exist? or, why explore the mechanics of randomness vs determinism if randomness doesn’t exist and thus the dichotomy “randomness vs determinism” doesn’t exist in the first place?
The conceptual dichotomy still exists, even if reality sides with one horn of the dilemma.
It’s important to realise that you are not dealing with a dissolution here. A dissolution roughly means that an “A or B” questionis conceptually invalid. Empirically settling an A-or-B isnt a dissolution, and isnt a waste of time.
A dissolution roughly means that an “A or B” question is conceptually invalid. Empirically settling an A-or-B isn’t a dissolution, and isn’t a waste of time.
I agree, I need to understand the concept of dissolution more.
The conceptual dichotomy still exists, even if reality sides with one horn of the dilemma.
It’s important to realise that you are not dealing with a dissolution here. A dissolution roughly means that an “A or B” questionis conceptually invalid. Empirically settling an A-or-B isnt a dissolution, and isnt a waste of time.
But determinism isnt a fact … its an open scientific question … and EYs argument for determinism isnt empirical, and isnt valid
I agree, I need to understand the concept of dissolution more.