This 'halo' of causation which hovers over possible worlds keeps the actual cause hidden. If Austin was right (I agree that he wasn't), then we would have to assume only one possible world, i.e. a world with no agents. Then we would have no need to contemplate many worlds because we would not be here to contemplate them. Hence, Austin would not, 'could' not, have sunk the putt because he wouldn't be there to sink it. Or, if he was simply not good enough to sink it, then he would be the putz.
ok the chess example just went ooooon and ooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnn
yoanadim 2 years ago
This 'halo' of causation which hovers over possible worlds keeps the actual cause hidden. If Austin was right (I agree that he wasn't), then we would have to assume only one possible world, i.e. a world with no agents. Then we would have no need to contemplate many worlds because we would not be here to contemplate them. Hence, Austin would not, 'could' not, have sunk the putt because he wouldn't be there to sink it. Or, if he was simply not good enough to sink it, then he would be the putz.
paradirob 3 years ago