On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 6:44 AM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I can see that. But consider that the notion of being able to change the
> outcome of future society - 'prevent' or 'deter' anything at all - depends
> on the possibility of variant futures. From the absolute perspective, such
> variation is impossible (or is merely random and so not subject to reason
> or 'choice'). So how does one justify any decision? Seen absolutely, it was
> inevitable and there can be no talk of a good or a bad decision.

I think determinism should not be confused with fatalism (i.e. it does not
matter what you do, things will turn out the same). In determinism it
matters what you do, even if what you do is determined. Once an outcome is
obtained, we can still analyze the contribution of decisions to that
outcome, evaluate them, and most importantly, learn from them. Next time,
what we have learned will be taken into account for the next decision. This
can take place in a purely deterministic world. Even two deterministic
(with some pseudorandomness added) computer chess players playing against
each other, can learn from each other mistakes and use what they have
learned for future competitions.

The point is not changing future outcomes. In fact we don't know what that
outcome will be. The point is obtaining good outcomes.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to