I see counterfactual reasoning as the discipline of considering scenarios rather than isolated choices.
We often need to evaluate options when making a decision, and it is an error to consider only the choice—we should also consider the implications and effects of the choice. I am not choosing between two otherwise identical worlds in which I either do X or Y; I am choosing between the world which results from doing X or the world which results from doing Y. It is not just the choice that differs, it is the entire resulting scenario.
Similarly, when evaluating past decisions, it is an error to consider only the decision in question. We must compare the scenarios that would have resulted from the decision (to some appropriate level of computational complexity—I’m not asking you to simulate entire universes, but you should think about the knock-on effects, not just the immediate decision).
Counterfactual reasoning means considering a possible universe that didn’t happen. The opposite is failing to consider a possible universe, and instead thinking about an event that didn’t happen, superimposed on the universe that did happen. It’s the difference between evaluating coherent alternative scenarios vs (unwittingly) evaluating incoherent scenarios.
For a chapter title, maybe “Counterfactual Reasoning vs Isolated Choices”?
I see counterfactual reasoning as the discipline of considering scenarios rather than isolated choices.
We often need to evaluate options when making a decision, and it is an error to consider only the choice—we should also consider the implications and effects of the choice. I am not choosing between two otherwise identical worlds in which I either do X or Y; I am choosing between the world which results from doing X or the world which results from doing Y. It is not just the choice that differs, it is the entire resulting scenario.
Similarly, when evaluating past decisions, it is an error to consider only the decision in question. We must compare the scenarios that would have resulted from the decision (to some appropriate level of computational complexity—I’m not asking you to simulate entire universes, but you should think about the knock-on effects, not just the immediate decision).
Counterfactual reasoning means considering a possible universe that didn’t happen. The opposite is failing to consider a possible universe, and instead thinking about an event that didn’t happen, superimposed on the universe that did happen. It’s the difference between evaluating coherent alternative scenarios vs (unwittingly) evaluating incoherent scenarios.
For a chapter title, maybe “Counterfactual Reasoning vs Isolated Choices”?