Vantage point problem, in detail

 

 

How a finite being located within space and time could claim a God’s-eye viewpoint through which to assert determinism. Let us call this a “vantage point (VP) problem.

 

The omniscience here does not mean that one knows everything

:Rather, one targets everything.

 

The determinist refers1 to:           (our realm)

The determinacy of all the events of the universe comprising the very event of referring2 to the determinacy of all the events.

 

: the mind engaged in referring1 = the mind engaged in referring2             (?)

: subject = object under determinism

: determinacy (things cannot happen otherwise; events fixed across time)

: a realm where things are settled vs. a realm where things are happening

: determinism (fixed scenarios) entails eternalism (past, present, future coexisting)?

-> not necessarily

: fixed nature of the scenarios differs from ontological realness of the scenarios

 

: determinism o, presentism o, eternalism x

=> everytime we fast forward in time, the result would be the same.

=> But what does it mean that things could have been different?

But D knowledge doesn’t exist.

 

: Determinism o, eternalism o

=> D knowledge exists.

 

 

The determinist refers2 to:           (settled realm)

The determinacy of all the events of the universe comprising the very event of referring1 to the determinacy of all the events.

 

 

------------------------------------------------

 

 

The indeterminist refers1 to:

The indeterminacy of some of all the events of the universe comprising the very event of referring2 to the indeterminacy of some of all the events.

 

=> Does this avoid the vantage point problem?

: namely, the mind engaged in referring1 = the mind engaged in referring2  (??)

: indeterminacy (things might happen otherwise; events indeterminate across time)

=> everytime we roll the universe, the result could be different.

 

: as the indeterminist is referring1 to the (potential) indeterminacy of referring2, the mind engaged in referring1 is rendering determinate the indeterminacy of the mind engaged in referring2. Hence, no strict equivalency between the subject (referring1) and object (referring2)