What does it mean when I say “I’m in control of my future”?
Here’s a plausible translation: “Certain facts about my future depend on my present (and past) decisions and actions”.
Let’s try breaking this down further. What does it mean for a future fact to depend on my actions or decisions?
Well, I think it means that certain counterfactuals of the form “If I hadn’t performed action X, then event Y would not have happened” are true. Example: If I hadn’t applied to a Ph.D. program, I would not be writing my dissertation.
So now the question is, can we make sense of such counterfactuals being true or false in a deterministic universe? That answer depends on your theory of how to evaluate counterfactuals. And there’s a pretty good theory outlined here. According to the theory described in that post, certain counterfactuals of the form “If I hadn’t performed action X, then event Y would not have happened” are in fact true (like the example above), so plausibly I am at least partially in control of my future.
If you find this analysis unsatisfactory, perhaps try pinpointing where you think it breaks down. Are you skeptical about translating the problem of fatalism into a problem about counterfactuals? Do you disagree with the Pearlian analysis of counterfactuals?
One common objection to the first translation I offered is that control of the future isn’t just a matter of the future depending (in part) on one’s actions. It also requires that one’s actions themselves do not depend on past facts. But think about what such a condition would mean. It would mean your actions are not rational—they don’t depend on the available evidence, your beliefs or your desires (all of which are past facts). Does it really make sense to stipulate that only an irrational person is in control of his/her future?
What does it mean when I say “I’m in control of my future”?
Here’s a plausible translation: “Certain facts about my future depend on my present (and past) decisions and actions”.
Let’s try breaking this down further. What does it mean for a future fact to depend on my actions or decisions?
Well, I think it means that certain counterfactuals of the form “If I hadn’t performed action X, then event Y would not have happened” are true. Example: If I hadn’t applied to a Ph.D. program, I would not be writing my dissertation.
So now the question is, can we make sense of such counterfactuals being true or false in a deterministic universe? That answer depends on your theory of how to evaluate counterfactuals. And there’s a pretty good theory outlined here. According to the theory described in that post, certain counterfactuals of the form “If I hadn’t performed action X, then event Y would not have happened” are in fact true (like the example above), so plausibly I am at least partially in control of my future.
If you find this analysis unsatisfactory, perhaps try pinpointing where you think it breaks down. Are you skeptical about translating the problem of fatalism into a problem about counterfactuals? Do you disagree with the Pearlian analysis of counterfactuals?
One common objection to the first translation I offered is that control of the future isn’t just a matter of the future depending (in part) on one’s actions. It also requires that one’s actions themselves do not depend on past facts. But think about what such a condition would mean. It would mean your actions are not rational—they don’t depend on the available evidence, your beliefs or your desires (all of which are past facts). Does it really make sense to stipulate that only an irrational person is in control of his/her future?
And “Is the universe deteminsitic”