Simply having the ability in principle means that there is a logical paradox. What would it actually mean for someone to somehow have the ability to know the future with certainty, while also retaining the ability to change the future? The ability to express that idea grammatically and to create a compelling narrative revolving around it doesn't make it logically coherent. That's exactly like the sort of thing Wittgenstein used to criticize, because the conclusions aren't meaningful. When you reduce the dressings down to the base premises and conclusion, it's a matter of redefining terminology for a semantical victory. That, like every argument of compatibilism I've seen, attempts to "have one's cake and eat it too" in an incoherent manner. You can reduce the claim to, "An individual can know the future without creating a paradox by choosing not to alter it." But you either have the ability to make decisions or you don't you can't solve the paradox by introducing a phenomenon that in effect surrenders choice while holding on to the ability to make a choice. If they have the ability but do not exercise the ability, you've still introduced a logical contradiction.įrom that perspective, framing action as "performative" is at best hand-wavy. I think the commenter's point is that it isn't enough for one to simply choose not to alter the future once they are aware of it. In any event, teleology provides a narrative for millions of believers to this day, and you don't need to know the future in order to be a fatalist. I personally found Chiang's story to be a rather poor treatment of the subject compared to other, older and better known ones, and the movie, while better executed, destroyed the story's philosophical point, however simplistic in its treatment. There's also Macbeth, which is a little different as knowledge of the future is what sets things in motion. in Genesis) if not a teleological view of life? And, of course, the story of Cassandra, who is cursed with the power of prophecy. What is Oedipus Rex (429 BC) or even the bible (esp. That "memetic virus" is no science fiction, and has been a part of human philosophy since forever.
In fact, you may believe that the past offers cause, but you believe that it is just a perception, while the "true" (and possibly unknown) reason is teleological. Fatalism doesn't require that you know the future for you to act. In fact, the teleological point of view is central to some human philosophies (of fate and predestination) without turning its believers into p-zombies (at least, not as far as we know). You don't need to actually remember the future for you to view life as teleological.
#Ted chiang story of your life summary movie#
Actually, in the movie this is also not true for the heptapods, who do have a time-traveling causal explanation for their actions (they do what they do because they will need humanity in the future). This is true for the heptapods (at least in the story), who do not require causal explanation for their actions, but not for Louise, at least in the movie, as her perception of time does have actual (and very significant) consequences, which kind of defeat the entire idea and turn it into a time-travel story. Variational physics is the same physics expressed differently. There is no actual difference in outcome.
Ah, but the difference between a causal and a teleological view of the universe is just that - they're different points of view.