In an important sense, the possibilities given by nondeterminism are the only ones important for decision making, because without them, there is just one thing you can will and must do.
in a counterfactual, the probability of the state transition corresponding to the possible decision being considered is going to be high, unlike “a priori” probability of that transition, but they are the same in the actual world
Why? You don’t have omniscient knowledge of the world, and you don’t have perfect insight into yourself either.
Any problem with logical counterfactuals is still present in the nondeterministic case, because you can build computers out of nondeterministic components, and there is logical uncertainty about probabilities.
You need to explain why there is any problem with logical counterfactuals.
There is no satisfactory account of logical counterfactuals.
Sure there is. There isn’t an account of logical counterfactuals given 1) determinism 2) effectively omniscient knowledge of how the world works , and 3) no sandboxing, erasure of knowledge, etc.
But 1 isn’t known to be true, 2) is known to be false, and 3) is always available anyway.
In an important sense, the possibilities given by nondeterminism are the only ones important for decision making, because without them, there is just one thing you can will and must do.
Why? You don’t have omniscient knowledge of the world, and you don’t have perfect insight into yourself either.
You need to explain why there is any problem with logical counterfactuals.
Sure there is. There isn’t an account of logical counterfactuals given 1) determinism 2) effectively omniscient knowledge of how the world works , and 3) no sandboxing, erasure of knowledge, etc.
But 1 isn’t known to be true, 2) is known to be false, and 3) is always available anyway.