Thank you! That’s definitely more clear than anything I’ve read about this on LW to date!
Follow-up question that immediately occurs to me:
Why are these two ways of evaluating counterfactuals and not, like… “answers to two different questions”? What I mean is: if we want to know what would happen in a “counterfactual” case, it seems like the first thing to do is to say “now, by that do you mean to ask what would happen under physical intervention, or what would happen under logical intervention?” Right? Those would (could?) have different answers, and really do seem like different questions, so after realizing that they’re different questions, have we thereby resolved all confusions about “counterfactuals”? Or do some puzzles remain?
What I mean is: if we want to know what would happen in a “counterfactual” case, it seems like the first thing to do is to say “now, by that do you mean to ask what would happen under physical intervention, or what would happen under logical intervention?” Right?
Yes.
Those would (could?) have different answers, and really do seem like different questions, so after realizing that they’re different questions, have we thereby resolved all confusions about “counterfactuals”?
I think that intervening on causality and logic are the only two ways one could intervene to create an outcome different from the one that actually occurs.
Or do some puzzles remain?
I don’t work in the decision theory field, so I want someone else to answer this question.
Thank you! That’s definitely more clear than anything I’ve read about this on LW to date!
Follow-up question that immediately occurs to me:
Why are these two ways of evaluating counterfactuals and not, like… “answers to two different questions”? What I mean is: if we want to know what would happen in a “counterfactual” case, it seems like the first thing to do is to say “now, by that do you mean to ask what would happen under physical intervention, or what would happen under logical intervention?” Right? Those would (could?) have different answers, and really do seem like different questions, so after realizing that they’re different questions, have we thereby resolved all confusions about “counterfactuals”? Or do some puzzles remain?
Yes.
I think that intervening on causality and logic are the only two ways one could intervene to create an outcome different from the one that actually occurs.
I don’t work in the decision theory field, so I want someone else to answer this question.