Is the solution to the problem of future contingents in philosophy just quantum mechanics and uncertainty?
You would have to explain where you seem to have a problem.
bastard bitch Aristotle should stop toying with causality
>>16790649Nothing is "necessarily so" until after it happens. The probability of the actual outcome approaches 1 while the probabilities of the counterfactuals diminish to 0 as you approach the time of outcome resolution.
>>16790860>Nothing is "necessarily so" until after it happens.free will chads score another victory
>>16790905Everything is necessarily so and all conjecture about modadily is merely a quirk of language
>>16791051>Everything is necessarily soArbitrary metaphysical assertion.>all conjecture about modadilyQuote any "conjectures about modality". You literally can't.> merely a quirk of languageMight as well say "I'm a bio-LLM". Good job identifying and checking yourself out of any discussion.
>>16791066You are not the main character and you are subject to the same physical laws that bounds a rock to the floor
>>16790649>problem of future contingents in philosophySorry, but "philosophy" is not a serious field and none of its "problems" are real problems. Thanks.
>>16791071Pretty funny how the moment I say "bio-LLM" you shit out the most generic and irrelevant talking point in your database.
>>16791071>u.r.rockI.am.turtle.
>>16791077Concurs with first reply, tye
>>16790675>You would have to explain where you seem to have a problem.The problem is that you're seemingly forced to choose between demoting the future (and the past, and the present - all of existence) into some vacuous tautology, or allowing a statement's truth value to depend on the time of its consideration (when it doesn't logically depend on such context). Granted, this isn't a problem to bots who always favor vacuity.
>>16791183>logically depend onComplete the forensic audit over your post. I cannot call reasoning flawed with partial state
>>16791216Ok retard.
>>16790860That sounds like wavefunction collapse >>16790649Ancient Greeks debate about infinite divisibility of matter led to the idea of an atom. Wouldn't the rejection of bivalence and probabilistic branching resulting from the problem of future contingents just map to quantum wavefunctions? I think that's the question.
>>16792099>That sounds like wavefunction collapseI don't see how. A wavefunction collapse is supposed to be an instantaneous snap, not a gradual fading of counterfactuals. What I described works is applicable to classical systems, in particular the kind of chaotic system the classic formulation of OP's problem is about.
>>16792120Ubiquity has the special property of existing everywhere, a theory of everything needs it for the simply understood 'everything' qualifier. Expecting wave function is necessarily ultratiny means expecting it cannot compound upon its operation at larger scales, which would imply it was not ubiquitous.
>>16792140What is this word salad, anon?
>>16792120In classical mechanics, one can clearly measure the state of a physical system. This makes physics entirely deterministic, so the state of all counterfactuals can be known precisely with a single "snapshot" of some physical system. This would mean that before t_future, all counterfactuals already have a probability of 0 (or 1, if something necessarily happens). Someone could just calculate this, and there's nothing in the laws of the universe to prevent this, so it can be equivalent to bivalence. It's only with quantum uncertainty and wavefunctions that one can start to assign probabilities. These probabilities then collapse and drop to zero before t_future.
>>16794346>In classical mechanics, one can clearly measure the state of a physical systemReal life is not classical mechanics. There is no magical peephole into the metaphysical realm of truth. There is only physical measurement whose inherent uncertainties are propagated by the laws of classical mechanics to yield distributions instead of concrete outcomes.
>>16794351Epistemically yes, but I'm trying to get to the ontic reality of the Universe as much as possibleYet again everything we can debate about is epistemics so idk
>>16794351I can find or generate counterfactuals which lead to further exploration of life. Given a simulation is just another kind of locality, it should decompose into P-zombie symmetry
>>16794825>Epistemically yes, but I'm trying to get to the ontic reality of the Universe as much as possibleThe thing is, you get this "epistemic" problem no matter how you slice up the universe and no matter what laws you formulate: you can't know without measuring, you can't measure without interacting and you can't interact with disturbing the very system you're measuring. It seems like the state of the universe if fundamentally unknowable from within itself. If you confine your thinking to those limits (instead of pretending you're some metaphysical external observer), then talking about the universe being in a definite state becomes meaningless and so does the notion of a definite future defined by such state.This argument doesn't depend on any particular physics theory, empirical observations or practical limitations. It's based mainly on the relationship between the whole and its parts. I think epistemological limitations on such a fundamental level say something about ontology.
