On 13 May 2015 at 18:20, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
> For a robust ontology, counterfactuals are physically instantiated, > therefore the MGA is invalid. > Can you elaborate on this? ISTM that counterfactuals aren't, and indeed can't, be physically instantiated. (Isn't that what being counterfactual means?!) As I mentioned, a simple example is my decision between tea and coffee. In the MWI (or an infinite universe) there are separate branches (or locations) in which I have both - but in the branch where I had tea, I didn't have coffee, and vice versa. And because those branches can't communicate, the road not taken remains counterfactual and non-physical within each branch. Isn't that enough for the MGA to not need to worry about counterfactuals, even in the MWI/Level whatever multiverse? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
