Man, it's been a really long time since I played (well, watched a Let's Play of) Bioshock Infinite, so I don't remember what the Constants are.
I agree, though, that a limited multiverse doesn't necessarily run into the determinism problems I've sketched above. For example, in Star Trek, for a long time, there was only one parallel universe: the Mirror Universe where Spock had a goatee and everyone was evil... except, as it turned out over the course of the episode, the people there weren't uniformly evil, and were still capable of making free choices. The circumstances of that universe were brutal, but it appears that they were made by free choices and could still be changed by free choices. (Of course, the conceit that this other universe coincidentally had exactly the same crew on exactly the same ship in exactly the same positions was pretty outrageous, but, if you accept the conceit, the episode's pretty good.) Multiverses that contain only a few universes aren't a big problem for libertarian free will, and they only become really dangerous when they are infinite.
Of course, Bioshock Infinite's multiverse WAS infinite -- it's right there in the title -- so that's not an escape hatch for Bioshock.
I think it's arguable that, in an infinite multiverse, entities that act across universes (without creating new ones through their actions) could, in theory, have free will. For example, in Everything Everywhere All At Once, there is only one Jobu Tupaki, and Jobu Tupaki has the capacity to destroy the *entire* multiverse. If she does this, there's no "branch" multiverse where the multiverse continues intact; the conceit of the story is that the *entire* everything-bagel could be consumed. This means that, for the first and only time in the movie, there's an actual alternate possibility open to one of the characters. This is one of the essential preconditions for free action: A person's act is free if and only if that person could have done otherwise. Arguably, destroying the multiverse (or refraining from doing so) is the only free act Jobu Tupaki is capable of. One could, perhaps, construct a similar defense of libertarian free will in Bioshock based on Constants which are (as I understand it from Google) events that always occur in every universe.
But I think this would be very tricky. Another precondition for free will is that the choice between alternate possibilities be genuinely under the control of the agent. It is unclear to me how the sorts of agents that act across universes in multiverse-based fictions -- Lutece siblings or Jobu Tupakis or Anti-Monitors, as you please -- could have this kind of agency, when absolutely nothing else in their cosmos does.
I should probably think about this comment more before I post it, but I'm typing from one of those "30 minute computer stations" and my time is just about up.
Anyway, welcome to De Civitate, TDS! Glad to see you in the comments and hope to see more of you!
Not sure how that happened. I've tried for a long time to not register with this site. I think the previous post was a guest account, but I'm not sure.
Also, we've talked when you were still on Blogger(?) and in e-mail.
Would adding hard boundaries to the Multiverse, like the Constants in Bioshock Infinite, save the concept from determinism?
Man, it's been a really long time since I played (well, watched a Let's Play of) Bioshock Infinite, so I don't remember what the Constants are.
I agree, though, that a limited multiverse doesn't necessarily run into the determinism problems I've sketched above. For example, in Star Trek, for a long time, there was only one parallel universe: the Mirror Universe where Spock had a goatee and everyone was evil... except, as it turned out over the course of the episode, the people there weren't uniformly evil, and were still capable of making free choices. The circumstances of that universe were brutal, but it appears that they were made by free choices and could still be changed by free choices. (Of course, the conceit that this other universe coincidentally had exactly the same crew on exactly the same ship in exactly the same positions was pretty outrageous, but, if you accept the conceit, the episode's pretty good.) Multiverses that contain only a few universes aren't a big problem for libertarian free will, and they only become really dangerous when they are infinite.
Of course, Bioshock Infinite's multiverse WAS infinite -- it's right there in the title -- so that's not an escape hatch for Bioshock.
I think it's arguable that, in an infinite multiverse, entities that act across universes (without creating new ones through their actions) could, in theory, have free will. For example, in Everything Everywhere All At Once, there is only one Jobu Tupaki, and Jobu Tupaki has the capacity to destroy the *entire* multiverse. If she does this, there's no "branch" multiverse where the multiverse continues intact; the conceit of the story is that the *entire* everything-bagel could be consumed. This means that, for the first and only time in the movie, there's an actual alternate possibility open to one of the characters. This is one of the essential preconditions for free action: A person's act is free if and only if that person could have done otherwise. Arguably, destroying the multiverse (or refraining from doing so) is the only free act Jobu Tupaki is capable of. One could, perhaps, construct a similar defense of libertarian free will in Bioshock based on Constants which are (as I understand it from Google) events that always occur in every universe.
But I think this would be very tricky. Another precondition for free will is that the choice between alternate possibilities be genuinely under the control of the agent. It is unclear to me how the sorts of agents that act across universes in multiverse-based fictions -- Lutece siblings or Jobu Tupakis or Anti-Monitors, as you please -- could have this kind of agency, when absolutely nothing else in their cosmos does.
I should probably think about this comment more before I post it, but I'm typing from one of those "30 minute computer stations" and my time is just about up.
Anyway, welcome to De Civitate, TDS! Glad to see you in the comments and hope to see more of you!
Thank you for the welcome, though I should point out that we've talked before. I'll keep an eye out for your future, revised (?) statement.
You have two accounts! *surprised pikachu*
Not sure how that happened. I've tried for a long time to not register with this site. I think the previous post was a guest account, but I'm not sure.
Also, we've talked when you were still on Blogger(?) and in e-mail.
Yeah, now that I see your name, I recognize ya. I don't see emails, though, so was baffled by the appearance of TDS.
Well, at any rate, I withdraw my welcome and instead extend you a welcome BACK!
It was around the 2020 election, back when I dropped you. I still have the emails, including an unfinished draft I never sent.
Anyway, thank you for the welcome back.