tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post4362273928070836114..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Radical Essentiality of Origins and a crazy theory of namesAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-13028826271733639072010-06-20T21:50:29.101-05:002010-06-20T21:50:29.101-05:00REO probably does rule out the possibility of havi...REO probably does rule out the possibility of having been an only child if one has older siblings. It even seems to rule out the possibility of one's having existed had Napoleon had one more hair on his head when he died.<br /><br />For the simplest thing here is just to say: everything in the causal history counts. (So, basically, everything in the backwards light-cone of the conception counts.) That's part of the "R" in "REO".<br /><br />Anything less than everything in the causal history, and we are apt to have problems figuring out what is to be included and what isn't.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-54809255972648467242010-06-20T21:00:54.929-05:002010-06-20T21:00:54.929-05:00I guess I am concerned with (or rather, confused a...I guess I am concerned with (or rather, confused about) the following: What facts would the advocate of REO say constitute the complete description of the origin of x? <br /><br />Does it merely have to do with the sperm and egg that actual constitute me? Or, that I am the child of John and Linda? Or that I am the youngest of 3 children of John and Linda? <br /><br />It seems that I could have been conceived on a different day (or even a second later) than I actually was. And, it seems possible (perhaps less possible than the former) that I could have been an only child, given that I am actually the youngest of 3. Would these be genuine possibilities for the advocate of REO? <br />I guess I am worried that REO rules out possibilities that seem harmless and rather plausible. <br /><br />I guess I have intuitions that there are certain de re contingencies that I would not want to be ruled out by REO. But then again, I have never given this a whole lot of thought.Andrew Jaegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478566939092309059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-25976547447387278032010-06-20T14:43:49.785-05:002010-06-20T14:43:49.785-05:00The advocate of REO denies the possibility of the ...The advocate of REO denies the possibility of the same beings being in both worlds, since obviously they have different origins there. <br /><br />I don't find it that plausible to suppose that it's possible for me to have come into existence five minutes ago. What would have made that being be me?Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-47380046914633237382010-06-18T18:45:47.527-05:002010-06-18T18:45:47.527-05:00A possible worry for the REO:
Consider the actual ...A possible worry for the REO:<br />Consider the actual world right now, at say time t. Now consider a possible world, W1, which is indistinguishable from the actual world at t, other than the fact that the beings in w1 came into existence at t-1. It seems possible that I exist in both w1 and the actual world, but I have different origins in each possible world, even though in w1 everyone justifiedly believes I have the same origin as I do in the actual world. <br /><br />If the advocate of REO can dodge this worry, I think with a little more time and some scotch something can be worked up, maybe.Andrew Jaegerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06478566939092309059noreply@blogger.com