82,891
edits
Path-dependent: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
===Pragmatist’s prayer and the infinite game=== | ===Pragmatist’s prayer and the infinite game=== | ||
{{Standpoint capsule}} | {{Standpoint capsule}} | ||
Now there is one objection to this, and that is to say its premise is wrong: it rejects the causal principle on which the western enlightenment is founded. For the causal principle leads us to some kind of determinism, by which the future is, loosely or tightly, a consequence of the past. | |||
The “tight” version is a form of [[data modernism]]. Every branch of the world ash of destiny, every atomic reaction, every operating impulse of the universe is, in principle, calculable and that we have not yet done so is down to our own feeble calculating machines. Many serious intellectuals believe this. If it is true, then everything in the future is inevitable, immutable, and there’s nothing to be gained from grousing about it. | |||
===The past as a formal system=== | ===The past as a formal system=== | ||
Not also the idea that the past is a single formal causal chain, that we know about, is is a classic example of legibility in the sense articulated by [[James C. Scott]] in {{br|Seeing Like a State}}. | Not also the idea that the past is a single formal causal chain, that we know about, is is a classic example of legibility in the sense articulated by [[James C. Scott]] in {{br|Seeing Like a State}}. | ||