My entry. Focuses on the metaphysics of counterfactuals arguing that there are two types based upon two different possible states of a person’s mental model of causal relationships. This agrees with circularity. In general, I concur with principles 1-4 which you outline. My post hits on a bit of criteria a) b) and d).
Also, to the people who see everything confusing about counterfactuals as solved, this seems like a failure to ask new questions. If counterfactuals were “solved”, I would expect to be living in a world where would be no difficulty reverse engineering anything, the the theory and practice of prior formation would also be solved, decision theory would be unified into one model. We don’t live in that world.
I think there is still tons of fertile ground for thinking about the use of counterfactuals and we have not yet really scratched the surface of what’s possible.
You are right, of course. But even at the “level of philosophy” there are different levels, corridors, and extrapolations possible.
For example, it is not a question of engineering whether counterfactuals on chaotic systems are conditional predictions, or whether counterfactuals of different types of relationships have less necessary connection.
My entry. Focuses on the metaphysics of counterfactuals arguing that there are two types based upon two different possible states of a person’s mental model of causal relationships. This agrees with circularity. In general, I concur with principles 1-4 which you outline. My post hits on a bit of criteria a) b) and d).
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/EvDsnqvmfnjdQbacb/circular-counterfactuals-only-that-which-happens-is-possible
Also, to the people who see everything confusing about counterfactuals as solved, this seems like a failure to ask new questions. If counterfactuals were “solved”, I would expect to be living in a world where would be no difficulty reverse engineering anything, the the theory and practice of prior formation would also be solved, decision theory would be unified into one model. We don’t live in that world.
I think there is still tons of fertile ground for thinking about the use of counterfactuals and we have not yet really scratched the surface of what’s possible.
Being solved at the level that philosophy operates doesn’t imply being solved at the engineering level.
You are right, of course. But even at the “level of philosophy” there are different levels, corridors, and extrapolations possible.
For example, it is not a question of engineering whether counterfactuals on chaotic systems are conditional predictions, or whether counterfactuals of different types of relationships have less necessary connection.