This is Vihvelin's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Vihvelin's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Vihvelin
Recent Activity
Causation is defined as a relation between facts: C causes E if and only if C and E are nomologically independent facts and C is a necessary part of a nomologically sufficient condition for E. The analysis is applied to problems of overdetermination, preemption, trumping, intransitivity, switching, and double prevention. Preventing and allowing are defined and distinguished from causing. The analysis explains the direction of causation in terms of the logical form of dynamic laws. Even in a universe that is deterministic in both temporal directions, not every fact must have a cause and present facts may have no future causes. Continue reading
Posted Oct 11, 2020 at Vihvelin.com
I have argued that even if time travel is logically possible, there are some things a time traveler would not be able to do.; I reply here to critics who have argued that my account entails fatalism about the past or entails that the time traveler is unfree or that she is bound by “strange shackles.” My argument does not entail any sort of fatalism. The time traveler is able to do many of the things that everyone else can do and is as free as any non-time traveler. The time traveler is constrained only as we all are by the laws of nature. My argument shows only how strangely those constraints must operate if those laws permit time travel Continue reading
Posted Nov 16, 2019 at Vihvelin.com
We think that what happens in the future depends upon what happens now in a way the past does not. Lewis attempted to explain this as in terms of the temporal asymmetry of counterfactual dependence. On Lewis theory, counterfactuals describe worlds with pasts like ours save a miracle-- a violation of our laws-- has made the antecedent true. At our world, he says, the future overdetermined the past. This makes for an "asymmetry of miracles" which explains the counterfactual asymmetry. But Lewis's account fails. His account of counterfactuals is circular and his explanation of asymmetry self-contradictory. Jonathan Bennett's Simple Theory of counterfactuals does not involve miracles: it supposes counterfactuals describe worlds where the antecedent comes about as a result of differences in the past. Because it roots counterfactuals in laws, Bennett's theory allows us to explain temporal asymmetries as the result of the logical irreversibility of natural laws. Continue reading
Posted Dec 4, 2017 at Vihvelin.com
Image
... there is widespread confusion about what ‘determinism’ means. Certainly the standard textbook definitions are wrong. Wrong in the way that definitions are wrong: they don't capture what anyone really means by the term. Continue reading
Posted Jul 30, 2016 at Vihvelin.com
Image
with Terrance Tomkow Consider this possible world. w1 It’s a world in which signals appear at the left at time t1 and emerge on the right at t2. The dark circles indicate the presence of a signal; an empty circle, the absence. w1 is a very simple world. It is governed by one simple law. (L1) It is nomologically necessary that: (A and B) ≡ C We can describe its workings with a simple truth table using T or F to indicate the presence or absence of a signal. The rows represent all the combinations of events that the Law... Continue reading
Posted Aug 20, 2015 at Vihvelin.com
The Dispositional Compatibilist provides a further, positive argument for commonsense compatibilism by showing how our commonsense beliefs about free will are compatible with our beliefs about the natural world and our place in it, in a way that is not contingent on the falsity of determinism Continue reading
Posted Feb 12, 2015 at Vihvelin.com
Image
We've got free will. I'm able to raise my arm -- I just did. Now I'm not doing it. But I'm still able to do it. And it isn't just true that I'm able to raise my arm even when I'm not raising it; it's also true that I'm able to choose to raise my arm even when I'm not choosing to do it. And the same goes for lots and lots of other things that we don't do but can do. We are able to do much more than we actually do. We have unexercised abilities, unexercised powers of... Continue reading
Posted Nov 13, 2014 at Vihvelin.com
Image
Dan Dennett reviews Alfred Mele’s new book Free: Why Science Hasn't Disproved Free Will in October’s Prospect magazine. In the book Mele sets himself the task of explaining in terms accessible to everyone why recent highly publicized discoveries in neuroscience and psychology do not show, as some have claimed that "free will is an illusion". Dennett thinks Mele accomplishes his goal. As Dennett notes, it is an important part of Mele's strategy to demonstrate that one need not take sides on the grand philosophical debate about free will to understand why the scientific "dis-proofs" are bunk. The grand philosophical debate... Continue reading
Posted Oct 18, 2014 at Vihvelin.com
Image
On p. 162 of Causation: A User's Guide, Paul and Hall present a neuron diagram which they call a 'black-box case' and use it to argue that it refutes Lewis's Influence account and also teaches important lessons about causation. (The lessons: Don't jump to conclusions about causation until you know there are no further facts about internal causal structure. Don't assume that what is presented as a case of trumping is what it claims to be, rather than a case of overdetermination.) I don't dispute their second claim; I think they are right to challenge the assumption that the "trumped"... Continue reading
Posted Oct 16, 2014 at Vihvelin.com
Image
ABSTRACT: Some philosophers who defend the claim that there is a morally significant difference between killing and letting die (doing and allowing harm) rest their arguments on a controversial claim in the metaphysics of causation: that omissions cannot be causes. Not wanting to let our moral theory be thus hostage to metaphysics, Tomkow and I defended an account of "the Dif" which does not assume this. We did not deny that when Baker stands by, twiddling his thumbs while a child drowns, his failure to save the child may be an action, an event, and a cause of the drowning.... Continue reading
Posted Jun 27, 2014 at Vihvelin.com
I was recently asked, by Sofia Bonicalzi, to answer seven questions about free will and moral responsibility as part of a forthcoming special issue of a new online philosophy journal, Methòde . She has invited 29 philosophers to share their views, so it should be quite interesting! The issue will be published in October; my answers to the questions can be found below. 1. Much of the recent discussion concerning the problem of free will has been centered on the compatibilism/incompatibilism dichotomy. Do you think the central role attributed to this dichotomy is well deserved? If so, which of the... Continue reading
Posted Jul 13, 2013 at Vihvelin.com
Image
The impulses that tempt us to think that determinism robs us of free will are mistakes -- mistakes about the metaphysics of causation, mistakes about the nature of laws, and mistakes about the logic of counterfactuals. Continue reading
Posted Oct 21, 2012 at Vihvelin.com
David, thanks for your comment. I think the case of the perfect prophet is different from time travel. I agree that the person who tries, unsuccessfully, to refute his laundry list predictions may be justified in believing, not only the indicative but also the counterfactual. But this doesn't show that the counterfactual is true, nor does it show that we, who know better, are justified in believing that the counterfactual is true. I've written about this in a book I've just finished writing about the free will/determinism problem and I will do a post on it soon.
Toggle Commented Oct 9, 2011 on Time Travel: Horwich vs. Sider at Vihvelin.com
Image
... confusing counterfactual with indicative conditionals can muddle our thinking about time travel. In this post I offer, as a case in point, Ted Sider’s criticisms of Paul Horwich and me. Continue reading
Posted Oct 8, 2011 at Vihvelin.com
Image
My argument is that a Time Traveler cannot kill her baby self, even if she travels back in time, heavily armed and finds her baby-self undefended, right in front of her, even if, that is anyone else similarly armed in the same position could kill the baby. Continue reading
Posted Jul 17, 2011 at Vihvelin.com
Image
1) No one can do something (i.e. has the ability to do that thing) if it is always true that: if they tried to do it they would fail. 2)It is always true of Suzy, the Time traveller, that if she had tried to kill herself as a baby, she would fail. Continue reading
Posted May 29, 2011 at Vihvelin.com
Image
I defend my argument that the Time Traveller cannot kill her baby self I want to explain why it wouldn't matter -- so far as the possibility of time travel is concerned -- if I turned out to be guilty, as charged, of fatalism. Continue reading
Posted May 25, 2011 at Vihvelin.com
Image
There are two different objections to time travel that are not always distinguished (or not distinguished carefully enough). I call these objections the 'Changing the Past' objection and the 'Freedom Contradiction' objection. Continue reading
Posted May 8, 2011 at Vihvelin.com
Image
I'm interested in the philosophically interesting kind of time travel, by which I mean time travel to the one and only actual past, and, in particular, to your past, to the time when your parents were children, or to the time when you were a baby. Continue reading
Posted May 7, 2011 at Vihvelin.com
Hi Cihan, Thanks for reading! I have five (or maybe even six) more blog posts on this topic coming up. Stay posted!
Frankfurt noted that all parties to the traditional debate about the compatibility of free will and moral responsibility with determinism had subscribed to a common assumption. They had assumed the truth of something Frankfurt called “the Principle of Alternate Possibilities”, which he expressed as follows: (PAP) A person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. In the traditional debate incompatibilists had argued that if determinism is true, then no one could ever have done otherwise, while compatibilists argued that there is a morally relevant sense in which even a deterministic agent could... Continue reading
Posted Jul 20, 2010 at Vihvelin.com
Why does it matter whether we have free will? Common sense and tradition say that it matters because free will is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of having the kinds of choices that we care about. Continue reading
Posted Jul 15, 2010 at Vihvelin.com
Thanks to all who attended the Pacific APA session on “Classic Compatibilism” with myself, Bernard Berofsky, Randy Clarke, and Al Mele, and thanks especially to Joe Campbell for organizing and chairing. As always at these things, there wasn’t enough time so I thought I’d use the blogosphere to round out... Continue reading
Posted Apr 11, 2010 at Flickers of Freedom
Thanks to all who attended the Pacific APA session on “Classic Compatibilism” with myself, Bernard Berofsky, Randy Clarke, and Al Mele, and thanks especially to Joe Campbell for organizing and chairing. As always at these things, there wasn’t enough time so I thought I’d use the blogosphere to round out the discussion. Dispositions and Classic Compatibilism I'll begin with a few remarks about a view that Berofsky calls 'Dispositional Compatibilism", which he attributes to me and says is mistaken. I admit that I once wrote a paper with the deliberately provocative title "Free Will Demystifed: A Dispositional Account". However, I... Continue reading
Posted Apr 11, 2010 at Vihvelin.com
Justin and Randy, There may indeed be many different senses of 'can' or 'is able'. However, the question that I asked, in the post that started this comment thread, was: In which, if any, of these senses, does determinism have the consequence that we are *never* able to do otherwise? Mark, Contrary to what you say, I am not interested in "analyzing the concept of free will". I am not trying to do "conceptual analysis", whatever that is supposed to be. I'm trying to find out what, if anything, we are talking about when we talk about "free will". That is, I'm interested in what the term refers to, not what it "means" (whatever that means), and I am particularly interested in the question of whether the term refers to anything at any deterministic world. I believe that it does; my incompatibilist opponent says that it does not. I want to know: Why not? Kevin, The danger with metaphors is that they can beguile us into thinking we know what we are talking about . You say you "define" the robustness requirement as follows: "Robustness Requirement: an alternative possibility is ‘robust’ only if the presence of that alternative possibility is relevant for moral responsibility in some way beyond merely pointing out that determinism is false. " But do alternative possibilities "point at" anything? Does "point at" mean "entail"? How can the truth or falsehood of determinism ever be "irrelevant" to moral responsibility if incompatiblism is true? Does the presence of *any* alternative possibility "point out" that determinism is false or do only some kinds of alternatives do that? Without clarification on these points, no one can be sure what you are talking about. All this talk about "robust"' versus "non-robust" "alternative possibilities" could easily be avoided. As I noted earlier, the Principle of Alternate Possibilities is, despite its name, a principle about ability, not possibility. Michael (Mark, Thomas, and probably others), But I never claimed that we should eliminate all metaphors from language or that the metaphors invoked in free will discussions are always empty. On the contrary, I think that the "forking paths" and "adding to the past" metaphors evoke assumptions about the nature of time: the idea that we "move" through time in something like the way we move along a path and the idea that we "move" through time by literally adding to the sum total of reality. If these assumptions are part of the argument, they should be made explicit, for they are highly controversial. My point was only that we should not rely on undischarged metaphors when we are giving a philosophical argument. With respect to 'flickers of freedom', and 'non-robust' or 'miniscule' alternative possibilities, my point was that these metaphors are typically used in ways that obscure significant distinctions: e.g. the distinction between an 'alternative possibility' that consists of a blush and an alternative possibility that consists of a person's deciding or choosing to act otherwise. In any case, the issue is not whether it's possible that the person does otherwise. The issue is whether the person is able to do otherwise. John, Your way of "conceptualizing the enterprise" of philosophical dispute seems to me incoherent. You say we shouldn't think of it as trying to persuade one another. You say we should thinking of it as "seeking to persuade (or perhaps simply move in the right direction ) a fair-minded and reasonable agnostic (someone not already decisively committed one way or another)”. But if the " fair-minded agnostic" is "reasonable", then she is going to be moved "in the right direction" only by *argument* . And if the agnostic is moved by an argument for either side, it is going to have to be by her accepting as true or probable the premises of that argument. But if they are premises that both sides would accept, the agnostic has no role to play; since the canons of validity are not open to dispute, both sides can talk directly to one another. On the other hand, if the premise is one the other side does not, and has no reason to, accept, then the so-called agnostic's acceptance of it demonstrates that she wasn't really fair-minded: her willingness to accept that premise is ipso facto proof of bias. If you *really* have no expectation that we can persuade one another, why do you think it worth while talking to anyone who disagrees with you? I would say that if we abandon the idea of finding common ground in which to root our arguments and give up on the goal of persuading those who disagree with us as "tedious and fruitless" , we might as well stop doing philosophy. Overall comment: In my post, I asked two questions about free will. I asked for details (not metaphors) about *how* determinism is supposed to make it the case that no one has free will. (Does determinism entail that we never perform any overt actions? Does it entail that we never make any choices? Does it entail that we are never able to act or choose otherwise? Or ....?) And I asked what argument there is for any of these claims. I got virtually no reply (Andrei might have been the only one) to my first question. And, so far at least, it looks like the Consequence Argument is the only *argument* for the claim that determinism is incompatible with free will.
Toggle Commented Mar 26, 2010 on Clearing the Path at Flickers of Freedom