Back up a hair. Here's what you're presuming to explain:Supposing there are alternative futures A and B. A is made the present, meaning A is chosen. Then there is the question about agency "what was it that made the choice turn out A?" — Syamsu
I see this as a no-go theorem on having evidence of agency (of a choice). So I would ask you to define agency. I would also ask about choice, but then, I think you're implicitly defining choice sufficiently.By logic, there can be no evidence whatsoever of the agency of a choice — Syamsu
What if X is equivalent to the agency?Then we gather evidence in order to establish a fact of what made the decision turn out A, and come to the conclusion that it was in fact X which made the decision turn out A. — Syamsu
Is an agent not a definite, factual thing?But then X being a definite factual thing, we are saying X forced A — Syamsu
Let's introduce tags for times; T1<T2<T3. Let's say our agent is Y. Being a real moral dilemma, suppose A is saves a puppy; B is murders a puppy. Say further that the choice happens at T2...So then there is an error of contradiction between the premise that alternative future B was available, and the conclusion that B could not have been chosen. — Syamsu
...but I would hope not in an ontic sense; i.e., a sense in which we can say that at time T1, Y is a puppy murderer. So the sense in which B is possible has to be a sense that doesn't make Y culpable for B. And unless we're all puppy murderers, then it should be possible for Y to "force" A. If Y can force A, how come X can't be Y? Can we not at least evidentially confirm that Y is not in a general sense a puppy murderer?and the decision could not have turned out B. — Syamsu
No, that was by no means clear. In fact, that makes this less clear, because:I think it should have been clear to you that "agency", is by definition what it was that made the choice turn out A. — Syamsu
...there can be no question about whether the thing that made a choice is an agent or not if by definition anything that makes a choice is an agent. At best, there's a question of if the choice is made by something.Then there is the question about agency "what was it that made the choice turn out A?" — Syamsu
Want it to be a matter of fact? What a curious phrasing!I am guessing you want it to be a matter of fact that Jack chose to go left, instead of right. — Syamsu
...what explanation? I certainly may have missed something, but I searched for "agen" on this page, and just saw your original post, a response to hachit, Valentinus's post, and your reply. Your reply doesn't make sense. At best there's an opinion as to whether a choice has the properties you specify (essentially Principle of Alternate Possibilities). But if it does, by definition, whatever made the choice is an agent. I have a suspicion whatever argument you're referring to you simply forgot to give it. The closest I have seen is your original statement, which simply says that by logic, there can be no evidence of an agent, but does not say anything about what logic that is.But then I must refer you back to the explanation — Syamsu
Facts are forced by evidence, not chosen. — Syamsu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.