What does it even mean for possible futures to exist separately of the mind that is modelling them?
Not physically, but platonic objects that serve as semantics for formal syntax make sense, and only syntax straightforwardly exists in the mind, not semantics it admits. So these are the parts of decision making that exist outside of your mind, in the same sense as mathematical objects exist outside of a mathematician’s mind.
Good point. I’m equalizing between logical existence and existence in one’s mind in this post, but if we don’t do that then indeed we can say that possible futures exist platonically just as mathematical objects.
I’m equalizing between logical existence and existence in one’s mind in this post
But then territory is in the mind? The distinction is mind’s blindness to most of the details of the platonic objects it reasons about, thus they are separate existence only partially observed.
Not physically, but platonic objects that serve as semantics for formal syntax make sense, and only syntax straightforwardly exists in the mind, not semantics it admits. So these are the parts of decision making that exist outside of your mind, in the same sense as mathematical objects exist outside of a mathematician’s mind.
Good point. I’m equalizing between logical existence and existence in one’s mind in this post, but if we don’t do that then indeed we can say that possible futures exist platonically just as mathematical objects.
But then territory is in the mind? The distinction is mind’s blindness to most of the details of the platonic objects it reasons about, thus they are separate existence only partially observed.