The Only World We Could Have Had is the One We Have

[Steven Torman]

I was just recently watching an interview where a person had supposed that the world would be much different if another group of people had been the first to perform an act (this is intentionally vague, I do not want to misdirect from my inquiry).

I cannot remember where I heard it, I think my philosophy course, but as the title suggests: The world we live in is the only world we could have had in the first place; therefore no argument should ever consider a hypothetical position of possibilities. I am aware of the doctrine of determinism, but I cannot find an argument which makes this point (obviously I have made it, but I feel there is a well documented scholarly position on this of which I would like to have in my tool chest of debate). Is anyone familiar with this line of argument and the name of the person who advocated for it?

(Philosophy forum is shut down, this seemed like the proper place).

 

[Chesterton]

Yes that is vague, . I'd like to hear the interview, if you could link it. I think determinism died with the discovery of quantum physics. We know for a fact that there are possibilities, don't we?

 

[Tolworth John]

a person had supposed that the world would be much different if another group of people had been the first to perform an act

It isn't so much the act as having the ability to develope and exploit the discovery.
ie the chineses discovered gunpowder, paper, printing, and could smelt iron yettheir mind set meant they stayed in china and did not develope those ideas to drive their economy.
The same can be said of the ancient world in the west, that their beliefs andpractises prevented them from fully exploiting their knowledge.

It took Christianity to unlock the ability to question and experiment in science, to allow theuse of capital to fund industry and to promote honesty and equality before the law.

 

[Steven Torman]

Let me try again:

Amazon is the largest retailer of online goods. But of course, their is the possibility it could have been another retailer if the conditions were different.

I would say, "no, there is no use arguing for 'what could have been' not only is it a waste of time, it is not even possible it to have been different."

The current political climate has a possible world in mind that "could have happened" and if they can get everyone on board with this imagined possibility, it might not be too late to redeem the world to this imagined paradigm".

Building the argument that says, "your imagined world was not even possible, if we went back to the start and played it all over again, the same result would have happened"

Does this make sense now?