Reality has no duty to be a fair puzzle. In order to extract the understandable parts we might need to assume that reasons exist but doesn’t mean that every part is understandable even in principle.
On the level of quantum mechanics it is not so clear cut that there are definite courses of events. At the level that classical approximation is appropriate the logic starts to work. But reality is not required to be classical.
If we have malfunctioning cars, we will take them out of traffic and repair shop them. We don’t go “oh you can’t blame the cars” and let them be in the traffic and break down in the middle of the roads. Delineating which cars should be recalled doesn’t make claims that a specific cars should or would work differently but will make a call on what are the road legal standards.
When we do have the attitude of steering the future and we have a problematic individual/circumstance there will arise the question to what character/state we should steer it to ie what it ought to be (or if it helps to think “what it shall be”). If we hold the stance that everything ought to do what it does do then we would never grow/develop any system. So one could try to translate “ought to X” statements as “I am going to modify you to do X”
Reality has no duty to be a fair puzzle. In order to extract the understandable parts we might need to assume that reasons exist but doesn’t mean that every part is understandable even in principle.
On the level of quantum mechanics it is not so clear cut that there are definite courses of events. At the level that classical approximation is appropriate the logic starts to work. But reality is not required to be classical.
If we have malfunctioning cars, we will take them out of traffic and repair shop them. We don’t go “oh you can’t blame the cars” and let them be in the traffic and break down in the middle of the roads. Delineating which cars should be recalled doesn’t make claims that a specific cars should or would work differently but will make a call on what are the road legal standards.
When we do have the attitude of steering the future and we have a problematic individual/circumstance there will arise the question to what character/state we should steer it to ie what it ought to be (or if it helps to think “what it shall be”). If we hold the stance that everything ought to do what it does do then we would never grow/develop any system. So one could try to translate “ought to X” statements as “I am going to modify you to do X”