Against Counterfactual Miracles

Philosophical Review 125 (2):241-286 (2016)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
This paper considers how counterfactuals should be evaluated on the assumption that determinism is true. I argue against Lewis's influential view that the actual laws of nature would have been false if something had happened that never actually happened, and in favour of the competing view that history would have been different all the way back. I argue that we can do adequate justice to our ordinary practice of relying on a wide range of historical truths in evaluating counterfactuals by saying that, in typical cases, history would have been only *very slightly* different until shortly before the relevant time. The paper also draws some connections between the puzzle about counterfactuals under determinism and the debate about whether determinism entails that no-one can ever do otherwise than they in fact do.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
Reprint years
2016
PhilPapers/Archive ID
DORACM
Revision history
First archival date: 2014-05-27
Latest version: 3 (2017-09-05)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 55 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Knowledge of Objective Modality.Strohminger, Margot & Yli-Vakkuri, Juhani
Diamonds Are Forever.Dorr, Cian & Goodman, Jeremy
Modal Objectivity.Justin, Clarke-Doane
Modal Objectivity1.Clarke‚ÄźDoane, Justin

View all 12 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2014-05-28

Total views
1,064 ( #2,246 of 45,262 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
142 ( #3,375 of 45,262 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.