This doesn’t help. In a counterfactual, atoms are not where they are in actuality. Worse, they are not even where the physical laws say they must be in the counterfactual, the intervention makes the future contradict the past before the intervention.
The point is that the weirdness with counterfactuals breaking physical laws is the same for controlling the world through one agent (as in orthodox CDT) and for doing the same through multiple copies of an agent in concert (as in FDT). Similarly, in actuality neither one-agent intervention nor coordinated many-agent intervention breaks physical laws. So this doesn’t seem relevant for comparing the two, that’s what I meant by “doesn’t help”.
By “outside view” you seem to be referring to actuality. I don’t know what you mean by “inside view”. Counterfactuals are not actuality as normally presented, though to the extent they can be constructed out of data that also defines actuality, they can aspire to be found in some nonstandard semantics of actuality.
This doesn’t help. In a counterfactual, atoms are not where they are in actuality. Worse, they are not even where the physical laws say they must be in the counterfactual, the intervention makes the future contradict the past before the intervention.
The point is that the weirdness with counterfactuals breaking physical laws is the same for controlling the world through one agent (as in orthodox CDT) and for doing the same through multiple copies of an agent in concert (as in FDT). Similarly, in actuality neither one-agent intervention nor coordinated many-agent intervention breaks physical laws. So this doesn’t seem relevant for comparing the two, that’s what I meant by “doesn’t help”.
By “outside view” you seem to be referring to actuality. I don’t know what you mean by “inside view”. Counterfactuals are not actuality as normally presented, though to the extent they can be constructed out of data that also defines actuality, they can aspire to be found in some nonstandard semantics of actuality.