Feasibility RSSS

177 views

Published on

Feasibility is an oft-used concept in political philosophy. Yet conceptual obscurity abounds. To bring discipline to our feasibility assessments, I present a conceptual framework that evaluates feasibility claims solely in terms of circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs is feasible just in case its realization is not ruled out by facts that pertain to the relevant agents' capacity to bring about alternate states of affairs; a state of affairs is more feasible than another just in case the former is realized at more feasible worlds than the latter and the former requires fewer and lesser deviations from the status quo. This conceptual scheme is superior to others because it yields feasibility judgments that are more transparent and more rigorous than alternate analyses of feasibility.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
177
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • - Feasibility considerations are thought to constrain normative prescriptions in a variety of ways\n- Exclude theories from practical deliberation if their requirements are not feasible\n- Rank theories that meet some desirability condition according to their feasibility\n- Delimits our moral duties\n- As political philosophers have become more interested in making recommendations that can be implemented in our unjust world, a small literature has arisen trying to get clear on how we might evaluate feasibility claims.\n- Breeze through some preliminaries to give a sense of what I’ll be up to\n\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - First pass\n- Going to speak of states of affairs being feasible or infeasible, not actions or proposals.\n- Feasibility is a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Where the salient facts are those that affect our ability to bring about states of affairs\n- Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • - Depending on the sort of work you want a concept of feasibility to do, two notions of feasibility\n- Focus on practical feasibility and convince you that it is best analyzed in terms of circumstantial possibility.\n1. Morally neutral- assumes no requirement to overcome limitations where possible. Useful for cross-disciplinary feasibility analysis.\n2. Provides a basis for moral feasibility- just need to extract principles concerning limits on morally required costs from moral theory.\n- Two theoretical tasks:\n1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n2. Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • 1. Convince you that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility\n- Some people want to add various distinct notions to their analysis of feasibility\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized with sufficiently high probability\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized without incurring unacceptable moral costs\n- S is feasible just in case it can be realized and is stable\n- Although related, these should not be included in an analysis of feasibility\n- Why convince you that feasibility is just a species of circumstantial possibility?\n- The goal is not to accurately capture ordinary usage\n- The analytic goal is related to the sort of work we want a notion of practical feasibility to do\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Several types of considerations impinge on these judgements\n- Two broad classes\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Divide the salient considerations into two classes\n- Feasibility is among an array of considerations that inform our judgments about how best to address normatively undesirable states of affairs.\n- We want to have a clear idea of how each type of consideration constrains our all-things-considered judgments; each type of consideration must have a clearly defined role in informing these judgments.\n- If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n
  • - Assume for the sake of simplicity that our ranking of options is just a weighted sum of the different considerations\n
  • - If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success for the first task: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n- Second theoretical task: Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n
  • - If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success for the first task: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n- Second theoretical task: Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n
  • - If we link feasibility with other notions, we complicate our assessment of how different considerations affect our judgments.\n- Criterion of success for the first task: generate a concept that gives us a clear sense of how feasibility considerations constrain our all-things-considered judgments about how to best address normative undesirable states of affairs.\n- Second theoretical task: Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n
  • - Second theoretical task: Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n- Briefly, ...\n- Need to spell out the accessibility relation\n- Need to construct a framework that clearly illustrates the role of the salient constraints on our capacity to realize states of affairs.\n- Keep track of the two tasks ADVANCE\n
  • - Second theoretical task: Provide a framework for evaluating the feasibility of states of affairs given any set of limitations on our capacity to realize states of affairs\n- Briefly, ...\n- Need to spell out the accessibility relation\n- Need to construct a framework that clearly illustrates the role of the salient constraints on our capacity to realize states of affairs.\n- Keep track of the two tasks ADVANCE\n
  • - First target is the claim that feasibility is a function of stability.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Start by noting that stability is a matter of “staying there”, which is distinct from “getting there”. E.g., balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip.\n- As a first stab, notice that we can ask whether stable democracy is feasible. If feasibility were a function of stability, the “stable” in “stable democracy” would be redundant. But it doesn’t seem redundant.\n- Start by clearly defining stability ADVANCE\n- Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n
  • - First target is the claim that feasibility is a function of stability.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Start by noting that stability is a matter of “staying there”, which is distinct from “getting there”. E.g., balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip.\n- As a first stab, notice that we can ask whether stable democracy is feasible. If feasibility were a function of stability, the “stable” in “stable democracy” would be redundant. But it doesn’t seem redundant.\n- Start by clearly defining stability ADVANCE\n- Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n
  • - First target is the claim that feasibility is a function of stability.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Start by noting that stability is a matter of “staying there”, which is distinct from “getting there”. E.g., balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip.\n- As a first stab, notice that we can ask whether stable democracy is feasible. If feasibility were a function of stability, the “stable” in “stable democracy” would be redundant. But it doesn’t seem redundant.\n- Start by clearly defining stability ADVANCE\n- Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n
  • - First target is the claim that feasibility is a function of stability.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Start by noting that stability is a matter of “staying there”, which is distinct from “getting there”. E.g., balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip.\n- As a first stab, notice that we can ask whether stable democracy is feasible. If feasibility were a function of stability, the “stable” in “stable democracy” would be redundant. But it doesn’t seem redundant.\n- Start by clearly defining stability ADVANCE\n- Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - Stability is a function of how a system responds when it experiences a slight shock.\n- A state of affairs is stable if the system returns to S after a slight shock.\n- Some exogenous factor increases GDP per capita. What happens?\n- If the system returns to the initial state after the shock, then that state is stable. ADVANCE\n
  • - A state of affairs is unstable if the system settles on another state of affairs after a slight shock.\n- Stability is not necessary for feasibility ADVANCE\n\n
  • - A state of affairs is unstable if the system settles on another state of affairs after a slight shock.\n- Stability is not necessary for feasibility ADVANCE\n\n
  • - A state of affairs is unstable if the system settles on another state of affairs after a slight shock.\n- Stability is not necessary for feasibility ADVANCE\n\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not necessary for feasibility\n- Two ways to hang a picture.\n- First way is stable\n- Second way is unstable\n- Both are feasible\n- Stability not a necessary condition for feasibility\n- Nor is it a sufficient condition\n
  • - Stability not a sufficient condition\n- Putt the ball up the side of the cone\n- The hole is small, the slope is steep, difficult to maintain the right speed and line\n- Looks infeasible (or close to it), but once reached, the state of affairs is stable\n- Stability of S not a sufficient condition for feasibility of S\n
  • - Stability not a sufficient condition\n- Putt the ball up the side of the cone\n- The hole is small, the slope is steep, difficult to maintain the right speed and line\n- Looks infeasible (or close to it), but once reached, the state of affairs is stable\n- Stability of S not a sufficient condition for feasibility of S\n
  • - Stability not a sufficient condition\n- Putt the ball up the side of the cone\n- The hole is small, the slope is steep, difficult to maintain the right speed and line\n- Looks infeasible (or close to it), but once reached, the state of affairs is stable\n- Stability of S not a sufficient condition for feasibility of S\n
  • - Stability not a sufficient condition\n- Putt the ball up the side of the cone\n- The hole is small, the slope is steep, difficult to maintain the right speed and line\n- Looks infeasible (or close to it), but once reached, the state of affairs is stable\n- Stability of S not a sufficient condition for feasibility of S\n
  • - Stability not a sufficient condition\n- Putt the ball up the side of the cone\n- The hole is small, the slope is steep, difficult to maintain the right speed and line\n- Looks infeasible (or close to it), but once reached, the state of affairs is stable\n- Stability of S not a sufficient condition for feasibility of S\n
  • - Stability neither necessary nor sufficient\n- Explain intuition that feasibility is a function of stability: many of the same factors that affect our capacity to realize S also affect S’s stability. ADVANCE\n- Often, due to the various characteristics of a system, states that are feasible are also stable and vice versa. \n- When we say feasibility is a function of stability, we are generalizing from this commonplace fact. \n- But sometimes these things come apart. \n- Sometimes we can realize a state of affairs at numerous points but each of those points is unstable. ADVANCE\n\n
  • - Stability neither necessary nor sufficient\n- Explain intuition that feasibility is a function of stability: many of the same factors that affect our capacity to realize S also affect S’s stability. ADVANCE\n- Often, due to the various characteristics of a system, states that are feasible are also stable and vice versa. \n- When we say feasibility is a function of stability, we are generalizing from this commonplace fact. \n- But sometimes these things come apart. \n- Sometimes we can realize a state of affairs at numerous points but each of those points is unstable. ADVANCE\n\n
  • - Stability neither necessary nor sufficient\n- Explain intuition that feasibility is a function of stability: many of the same factors that affect our capacity to realize S also affect S’s stability. ADVANCE\n- Often, due to the various characteristics of a system, states that are feasible are also stable and vice versa. \n- When we say feasibility is a function of stability, we are generalizing from this commonplace fact. \n- But sometimes these things come apart. \n- Sometimes we can realize a state of affairs at numerous points but each of those points is unstable. ADVANCE\n\n
  • - Stability neither necessary nor sufficient\n- Explain intuition that feasibility is a function of stability: many of the same factors that affect our capacity to realize S also affect S’s stability. ADVANCE\n- Often, due to the various characteristics of a system, states that are feasible are also stable and vice versa. \n- When we say feasibility is a function of stability, we are generalizing from this commonplace fact. \n- But sometimes these things come apart. \n- Sometimes we can realize a state of affairs at numerous points but each of those points is unstable. ADVANCE\n\n
  • - A successful rail slide requires favorable momentum with a favorable distribution of weight.\n- Each set of conducive parameter values constitutes a delicate balance, so the rail slide is not stable; a slight shock in any direction throws off the delicate balance required to complete the slide. \n- This is feasible because any one of several delicate balances will realize a successful rail slide.\n- So here we have a system where the same outcome is realized at numerous unstable points.\n
  • - Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Stability matters as an independent constraint on our all-things-considered prescriptions.\n
  • - Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Stability matters as an independent constraint on our all-things-considered prescriptions.\n
  • - Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Stability matters as an independent constraint on our all-things-considered prescriptions.\n
  • - Concede that stability is important; disagree that it should be included in a discussion of feasibility.\n- Stability matters as an independent constraint on our all-things-considered prescriptions.\n
  • - Second target is the claim that feasibility is a the moral costliness of realizing a state of affairs.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- There is strong intuitive support for this view. If the moral costliness of realizing the prescribed state of affairs successfully is high enough, this can appear to rule out the state’s realization. \n- But Raikka’s argument turns on our interpretation of ‘successful’ and this has several natural readings here.\n- Raikka clearly wants to read the latter uses as normative; success is judged against a moral theory. We say that an ideal is successfully realized if its realization didn’t unduly violate the requirements of our moral theory.\n- But it’s not clear that the first instance should be read in the same way; it’s not even clear that this can be naturally read as normative. Alternative readings are perhaps obscured by the appearance of ‘used’, so change this to ‘implemented’.\n- There’s a reading of that phrase where ‘successfully’ means something like ‘completely’ (as opposed to partially) or ‘according to plan’; or where ‘successfully’ is redundant.\n- But my argument doesn’t just turn on our interpretation of ‘successfully’ \n
  • - Second target is the claim that feasibility is a the moral costliness of realizing a state of affairs.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- There is strong intuitive support for this view. If the moral costliness of realizing the prescribed state of affairs successfully is high enough, this can appear to rule out the state’s realization. \n- But Raikka’s argument turns on our interpretation of ‘successful’ and this has several natural readings here.\n- Raikka clearly wants to read the latter uses as normative; success is judged against a moral theory. We say that an ideal is successfully realized if its realization didn’t unduly violate the requirements of our moral theory.\n- But it’s not clear that the first instance should be read in the same way; it’s not even clear that this can be naturally read as normative. Alternative readings are perhaps obscured by the appearance of ‘used’, so change this to ‘implemented’.\n- There’s a reading of that phrase where ‘successfully’ means something like ‘completely’ (as opposed to partially) or ‘according to plan’; or where ‘successfully’ is redundant.\n- But my argument doesn’t just turn on our interpretation of ‘successfully’ \n
  • - Second target is the claim that feasibility is a the moral costliness of realizing a state of affairs.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- There is strong intuitive support for this view. If the moral costliness of realizing the prescribed state of affairs successfully is high enough, this can appear to rule out the state’s realization. \n- But Raikka’s argument turns on our interpretation of ‘successful’ and this has several natural readings here.\n- Raikka clearly wants to read the latter uses as normative; success is judged against a moral theory. We say that an ideal is successfully realized if its realization didn’t unduly violate the requirements of our moral theory.\n- But it’s not clear that the first instance should be read in the same way; it’s not even clear that this can be naturally read as normative. Alternative readings are perhaps obscured by the appearance of ‘used’, so change this to ‘implemented’.\n- There’s a reading of that phrase where ‘successfully’ means something like ‘completely’ (as opposed to partially) or ‘according to plan’; or where ‘successfully’ is redundant.\n- But my argument doesn’t just turn on our interpretation of ‘successfully’ \n
  • - Second target is the claim that feasibility is a the moral costliness of realizing a state of affairs.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- There is strong intuitive support for this view. If the moral costliness of realizing the prescribed state of affairs successfully is high enough, this can appear to rule out the state’s realization. \n- But Raikka’s argument turns on our interpretation of ‘successful’ and this has several natural readings here.\n- Raikka clearly wants to read the latter uses as normative; success is judged against a moral theory. We say that an ideal is successfully realized if its realization didn’t unduly violate the requirements of our moral theory.\n- But it’s not clear that the first instance should be read in the same way; it’s not even clear that this can be naturally read as normative. Alternative readings are perhaps obscured by the appearance of ‘used’, so change this to ‘implemented’.\n- There’s a reading of that phrase where ‘successfully’ means something like ‘completely’ (as opposed to partially) or ‘according to plan’; or where ‘successfully’ is redundant.\n- But my argument doesn’t just turn on our interpretation of ‘successfully’ \n
  • - Second target is the claim that feasibility is a the moral costliness of realizing a state of affairs.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- There is strong intuitive support for this view. If the moral costliness of realizing the prescribed state of affairs successfully is high enough, this can appear to rule out the state’s realization. \n- But Raikka’s argument turns on our interpretation of ‘successful’ and this has several natural readings here.\n- Raikka clearly wants to read the latter uses as normative; success is judged against a moral theory. We say that an ideal is successfully realized if its realization didn’t unduly violate the requirements of our moral theory.\n- But it’s not clear that the first instance should be read in the same way; it’s not even clear that this can be naturally read as normative. Alternative readings are perhaps obscured by the appearance of ‘used’, so change this to ‘implemented’.\n- There’s a reading of that phrase where ‘successfully’ means something like ‘completely’ (as opposed to partially) or ‘according to plan’; or where ‘successfully’ is redundant.\n- But my argument doesn’t just turn on our interpretation of ‘successfully’ \n
  • - Second target is the claim that feasibility is a the moral costliness of realizing a state of affairs.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- There is strong intuitive support for this view. If the moral costliness of realizing the prescribed state of affairs successfully is high enough, this can appear to rule out the state’s realization. \n- But Raikka’s argument turns on our interpretation of ‘successful’ and this has several natural readings here.\n- Raikka clearly wants to read the latter uses as normative; success is judged against a moral theory. We say that an ideal is successfully realized if its realization didn’t unduly violate the requirements of our moral theory.\n- But it’s not clear that the first instance should be read in the same way; it’s not even clear that this can be naturally read as normative. Alternative readings are perhaps obscured by the appearance of ‘used’, so change this to ‘implemented’.\n- There’s a reading of that phrase where ‘successfully’ means something like ‘completely’ (as opposed to partially) or ‘according to plan’; or where ‘successfully’ is redundant.\n- But my argument doesn’t just turn on our interpretation of ‘successfully’ \n
  • - Raikka’s claim here is that a state of affairs is not feasible because the process by which it must be realized is not morally justifiable. Moral theory forbids its implementation.\n- But, whatever Raikka means by ‘successful’, this claim runs together two distinct issues.\n1. Whether a state of affairs can be realized given the salient constraints on our capacity to realize states of affairs.\n2. Whether we ought to undertake to realize a state of affairs.\n- The first issue concerns the possibility of realizing a state of affairs and the limitations on our capabilities to do so.\n- The second issue concerns the moral justification for undertaking to realize a state.\n- In an effort to identify a feasibility concept that plays a well-defined role in constraining our all-things-considered prescriptions, it seems best to keep these issues separate.\n- If feasibility is a function of moral costliness, then feasibility is not an independent constraint on our moral theorizing (as is often thought), but is bound up with moral theory.\n- Our feasibility analysis is nothing other than our moral analysis of the transitional process.\n\n
  • - Third target is the claim that feasibility is a function of the probability of successful realization.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- This seems intuitively right: if agents are unlikely to undertake the actions required to realize a state of affairs or their attempts to realize S are unlikely to be successful, this looks like S is infeasible.\n- Make clear: in the next sentence, Holly concedes that feasibility is not identical with probability of success.\n- Only want to challenge the claim that likelihood of success is a necessary condition for feasibility.\n- Clear counterexamples to the claim that S is feasible only if one is likely to try to realize S.\n
  • - Third target is the claim that feasibility is a function of the probability of successful realization.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- This seems intuitively right: if agents are unlikely to undertake the actions required to realize a state of affairs or their attempts to realize S are unlikely to be successful, this looks like S is infeasible.\n- Make clear: in the next sentence, Holly concedes that feasibility is not identical with probability of success.\n- Only want to challenge the claim that likelihood of success is a necessary condition for feasibility.\n- Clear counterexamples to the claim that S is feasible only if one is likely to try to realize S.\n
  • - Third target is the claim that feasibility is a function of the probability of successful realization.\n- Use quote to pump intuition\n- This seems intuitively right: if agents are unlikely to undertake the actions required to realize a state of affairs or their attempts to realize S are unlikely to be successful, this looks like S is infeasible.\n- Make clear: in the next sentence, Holly concedes that feasibility is not identical with probability of success.\n- Only want to challenge the claim that likelihood of success is a necessary condition for feasibility.\n- Clear counterexamples to the claim that S is feasible only if one is likely to try to realize S.\n
  • - Clear counterexamples to the claim that S is feasible only if one is likely to try to realize S.\n- A case from Geoff and Nic: A father so lazy that he is very unlikely to attend his daughter’s hockey game. Nothing preventing, not especially difficult; just lazy.\n- Yet, it seems right to say that going to the hockey game is feasible.\n- Why?\n- One answer is that the couch potato is highly likely to succeed in attending the hockey game if he tries.\n- That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n
  • - Clear counterexamples to the claim that S is feasible only if one is likely to try to realize S.\n- A case from Geoff and Nic: A father so lazy that he is very unlikely to attend his daughter’s hockey game. Nothing preventing, not especially difficult; just lazy.\n- Yet, it seems right to say that going to the hockey game is feasible.\n- Why?\n- One answer is that the couch potato is highly likely to succeed in attending the hockey game if he tries.\n- That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - That is, S is feasible if we have a high probability of successfully realizing S conditional upon trying.\n- But there are counterexamples to this analysis as well.\n- Suppose a pivotal senator and two bills.\n- Kennedy has been persistent critic of the top bill, but if he changed course and supported the bill, enough other senators would follow his lead and the bill would be passed with high probability\n- If Kennedy supports the bottom bill, he will violate an earlier deal he made with other senators and some of those are likely to vote the bill down. It’s a coin toss whether Kennedy can save the bill.\n- Suppose Kennedy’s chances of reelection are sunk if he supports the top bill, but this is not the case with the bottom bill.\n- Realizing the successful passage of top bill seems less feasible than realizing successful passage of the bottom bill.\n- So feasibility is not a function of conditional probability of success\n- Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n\n
  • - Can’t say feasibility is a function of total probability because the lazy father attending has low total probability despite having high conditional probability\n- Again, in an attempt to identify a set of constraints that play well-defined roles in constraining our all-things-considered prescriptions, we should keep feasibility and the probabilities attached to outcomes apart.\n- What explains the intuition that feasibility is a function of likelihood?\n- Likelihood of realizing S is typically a related to the ways in which we’d need to alter the world to realize S, but not always. Our intuition that probability matters is a result of our thinking that the quantity and quality of required changes matters.\n- Summarize thus far\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - So far, I’ve tried to show that feasibility is just a brand of circumstantial possibility, or at least tried to show that it is not a function of other notions with which it has often been associated.\n- Make clear all-things-considered judgments about how to address unjust or otherwise normatively undesirable states of affairs \n- Actually, I probably haven’t said enough to vindicate the claim that feasibility is just a matter of circumstantial possibility. I should also say some things about how we can capture core intuitions about a state’s feasibility using just the theoretical resources of circumstantial modality. This leads me to... ADVANCE\n- My second task is to sketch a framework for evaluating feasibility claims in terms of circumstantial possibility. \n- If this framework provides a natural way to evaluate feasibility claims without smuggling in notions such as stability or probability of success, then I’ll take myself to have vindicated the claim that feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.\n- Reiterate: intuitively, when we say that S is feasible, we are saying that there is some causal process or some causal path that can take us from current conditions to S. (This is common to all discussions of feasibility.)\n- Reconsider first pass\n
  • - Compare my first pass with Buchanan’s definition of accessibility.\n- There’s a natural way to restate my first pass in terms of accessibility ADVANCE\n
  • - Compare my first pass with Buchanan’s definition of accessibility.\n- There’s a natural way to restate my first pass in terms of accessibility ADVANCE\n
  • - But now note the similarity of my definition with a familiar definition of circumstantial accessibility\n- Might instead say “circumstantially possible at w”\n- So we might restate my definition yet again, this time in terms of possible worlds, to be a little more precise.\n
  • - But now note the similarity of my definition with a familiar definition of circumstantial accessibility\n- Might instead say “circumstantially possible at w”\n- So we might restate my definition yet again, this time in terms of possible worlds, to be a little more precise.\n
  • - Now to evaluate feasibility claims, we need only figure out whether the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world.\n- Not that this is not a trivial task; “only” means that we can confine our attention to this task alone, instead of also trying to figure out whether S is stable, if we are likely to succeed in realizing S, if the transition to S incurs excessive moral costs, etc.\n- How might we evaluate the claim that, say, a global carbon tax is feasible or democratization of the WTO is feasible?\n- Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - Let’s start with the limitations on capacity\n- In general, numerous types of factors affect our ability to transition to alternate states of affairs.\n- Environment: climate, natural resource profile, topography\n- Technology: the tools, techniques, or organizational means by which we realize S\n- Cognitive: cognitive biases and limitations; lack of computational capacity\n- Intrinsic: features of human agents, e.g., preferences, prejudices, fears, capacity to project into another’s situation, affective biases\n- Extrinsic: environmental features that interface with intrinsic features; social norms, structure of rewards and punishments\n- Resources: money, labor, talent; budget constraint\n- Institutional capacity: veto points (Polish Assembly required unanimity on any resolution, 1600-1791); selection institutions (election, appointment) affect citizens’ ability to hold officials accountable\n- Social/cultural: social factors that affect capacity; harmony, cultural unity or diversity, civil conflict, religion, etc.\n\n
  • - This is only a start; real theoretical work needs to be done on this issue to catalog general classes of considerations that impinge on the realization of a state of affairs.\n- I don’t need to do this work before continuing. My framework is schematic in the sense that it can take any set of limitations as an input and generate a feasibility assessment.\n- This helps settle the salient limitations\n- Now we need to say something about accessibility\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Once we’ve arrived at the set of limitations -- at the set of facts that are going to constrain S’s accessibility -- we can treat each class of limitations as a single dimension of an N-dimensional metric space.\n- A metric space is just a space where a notion of distance (a metric) is defined.\n- The idea is to use these dimensions to organize modal space. ADVANCE\n- Do this in 2 dimensions to generate the intuition, but the idea generalizes.\n- We place the actual world at the origin - where the N dimensions intersect - at then locate possible worlds within the space according to their distance from the actual world along each dimension.\n- Note: to be included, a world must: satisfy all logical constraints, not entail any violations of the physical laws in the actual world, not have living organisms with fundamentally different structures, functions, or developmental processes than those in the actual world, share a common history with the actual world up to the time we are supposed to implement the process that is required to realize S\n- Note: we are comparing the worlds relative to the time that we are supposed to begin the process of realizing S- that is, we are comparing initial conditions.\n
  • - Each world in the space is characterized by a vector specifying the world’s location\n- This vector specifies the initial conditions at the world, the values for each parameter at w at t.\n- When is a world accessible from another world? ADVANCE\n- When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - Each world in the space is characterized by a vector specifying the world’s location\n- This vector specifies the initial conditions at the world, the values for each parameter at w at t.\n- When is a world accessible from another world? ADVANCE\n- When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - Each world in the space is characterized by a vector specifying the world’s location\n- This vector specifies the initial conditions at the world, the values for each parameter at w at t.\n- When is a world accessible from another world? ADVANCE\n- When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - Each world in the space is characterized by a vector specifying the world’s location\n- This vector specifies the initial conditions at the world, the values for each parameter at w at t.\n- When is a world accessible from another world? ADVANCE\n- When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - Each world in the space is characterized by a vector specifying the world’s location\n- This vector specifies the initial conditions at the world, the values for each parameter at w at t.\n- When is a world accessible from another world? ADVANCE\n- When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - When is a world accessible from another world?\n- w is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the conditions that define w. Fill out in terms of example.\n- There’s the question of how we might figure out when this is the case, but I leave this to one side for now. It’s an issue for anyone who wants to identify the feasible possibilities.\n- Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. ADVANCE\n
  • - Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. Not all worlds will be accessible from any other.\n- Current technology might not enable us to empathize with distant others, but it might permit some widening of the scope of felt concern\n- Current incentives might encourage some technological innovations, while discouraging others\n- This isn’t necessarily a matter of closing off far away possibilities\n- To wit, the present configuration of political officials’ preferences and the structure of the policy making apparatus might inhibit small changes to the tax code but facilitate adoption of a drastically different foreign policy (i.e., more interventionist or more isolationist)\n
  • - Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. Not all worlds will be accessible from any other.\n- Current technology might not enable us to empathize with distant others, but it might permit some widening of the scope of felt concern\n- Current incentives might encourage some technological innovations, while discouraging others\n- This isn’t necessarily a matter of closing off far away possibilities\n- To wit, the present configuration of political officials’ preferences and the structure of the policy making apparatus might inhibit small changes to the tax code but facilitate adoption of a drastically different foreign policy (i.e., more interventionist or more isolationist)\n
  • - Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. Not all worlds will be accessible from any other.\n- Current technology might not enable us to empathize with distant others, but it might permit some widening of the scope of felt concern\n- Current incentives might encourage some technological innovations, while discouraging others\n- This isn’t necessarily a matter of closing off far away possibilities\n- To wit, the present configuration of political officials’ preferences and the structure of the policy making apparatus might inhibit small changes to the tax code but facilitate adoption of a drastically different foreign policy (i.e., more interventionist or more isolationist)\n
  • - Before continuing, I take it that the particular conditions in a world constrain the set of accessible possibilities. Not all worlds will be accessible from any other.\n- Current technology might not enable us to empathize with distant others, but it might permit some widening of the scope of felt concern\n- Current incentives might encourage some technological innovations, while discouraging others\n- This isn’t necessarily a matter of closing off far away possibilities\n- To wit, the present configuration of political officials’ preferences and the structure of the policy making apparatus might inhibit small changes to the tax code but facilitate adoption of a drastically different foreign policy (i.e., more interventionist or more isolationist)\n
  • - So, on my view, a possibility is feasible when it is accessible from the actual world.\n- And a possibility is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the target possibility.\n- But this can’t be the whole story. We right count as feasible some possibilities that can’t be reached from the actual world as it is now, but could be reached once we alter the initial conditions in ways that conduce to the realization of the distant possibility.\n- As shorthand, the original formulation still holds. But we might state the point more precisely.\n- How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - So, on my view, a possibility is feasible when it is accessible from the actual world.\n- And a possibility is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the target possibility.\n- But this can’t be the whole story. We right count as feasible some possibilities that can’t be reached from the actual world as it is now, but could be reached once we alter the initial conditions in ways that conduce to the realization of the distant possibility.\n- As shorthand, the original formulation still holds. But we might state the point more precisely.\n- How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - So, on my view, a possibility is feasible when it is accessible from the actual world.\n- And a possibility is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the target possibility.\n- But this can’t be the whole story. We right count as feasible some possibilities that can’t be reached from the actual world as it is now, but could be reached once we alter the initial conditions in ways that conduce to the realization of the distant possibility.\n- As shorthand, the original formulation still holds. But we might state the point more precisely.\n- How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - So, on my view, a possibility is feasible when it is accessible from the actual world.\n- And a possibility is accessible from the actual world when the initial conditions at the actual world do not rule out a causal process that leads to the realization of the target possibility.\n- But this can’t be the whole story. We right count as feasible some possibilities that can’t be reached from the actual world as it is now, but could be reached once we alter the initial conditions in ways that conduce to the realization of the distant possibility.\n- As shorthand, the original formulation still holds. But we might state the point more precisely.\n- How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - How do we evaluate feasibility claims with the framework?\n- Suppose we want to evaluate the feasibility of the state of affairs required by some prescription, say, democratizing the WTO.\n- Find the world that realizes that state.\n- Now look around for worlds from which that state is accessible.\n- If we can trace our way back to the actual world via a sequence of accessible worlds, then the proposal is feasible\n- But if the only worlds that are accessible from the actual world do not link up with that chain, then the proposal is infeasible\n- Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • - Going the other way, we can see which states are feasible by working outward from the actual world. ADVANCE\n- Note: it might be the case that we can get from the actual world to any other world via some sequence. Then it turns out that all the worlds that satisfy the constraints are feasible.\n- That’s fine, if that’s how it turns out. But then I haven’t defined feasibility in way that necessarily includes those worlds. Whether all the included worlds will be feasible will be contingent on whether they can be reached from the actual world in view of the salient limitations.\n- Finally, feasibility is plausibly a matter of degree- something can be more or less feasible.\n- How can we capture this intuition using this framework? ADVANCE\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • Feasibility as a matter of degree\n- Suggest that the purple world is more feasible than the blue world.\n- Both are in the feasible set, but there are more paths that converge on the purple world, each of those paths requires fewer steps; the purple world constitutes less of a departure from the actual world\n- This is related to what I was saying earlier in explaining the intuition that feasibility is a function of probability. These factors typically affect the likelihood of success, but not always.\n- Let’s take stock\n
  • - I set out to devise a framework that can deliver more or less clear feasibility assessments of prescribed states of affairs\n- In doing this, it was important to identify a notion of practical feasibility that not only made a well-defined contribution our all things considered prescriptions\n- but left clearly defined space for other important constraints to contribute to deliberations\n- I have argued that this is best done by defining feasibility in terms of circumstantial possibility\n- in the first instance, this meant showing that feasibility is not a function of other related characteristics, such as stability, probability of success, or moral costliness (but agreeing that these latter notions serve as important constraints on our judgments).\n- to give further support to the claim that feasibility is best defined in terms of circumstantial possibility, I constructed a framework that yields natural feasibility judgments using only the resources provided by a familiar definition of circumstantial accessibility\n- importantly, my framework is able to account for both a dichotomous sense and a continuous sense of feasibility.\n- work to be done ADVANCE\n- framework is schematic and flexible\n- last two are issues for any account of feasibility\n
  • - I set out to devise a framework that can deliver more or less clear feasibility assessments of prescribed states of affairs\n- In doing this, it was important to identify a notion of practical feasibility that not only made a well-defined contribution our all things considered prescriptions\n- but left clearly defined space for other important constraints to contribute to deliberations\n- I have argued that this is best done by defining feasibility in terms of circumstantial possibility\n- in the first instance, this meant showing that feasibility is not a function of other related characteristics, such as stability, probability of success, or moral costliness (but agreeing that these latter notions serve as important constraints on our judgments).\n- to give further support to the claim that feasibility is best defined in terms of circumstantial possibility, I constructed a framework that yields natural feasibility judgments using only the resources provided by a familiar definition of circumstantial accessibility\n- importantly, my framework is able to account for both a dichotomous sense and a continuous sense of feasibility.\n- work to be done ADVANCE\n- framework is schematic and flexible\n- last two are issues for any account of feasibility\n
  • - I set out to devise a framework that can deliver more or less clear feasibility assessments of prescribed states of affairs\n- In doing this, it was important to identify a notion of practical feasibility that not only made a well-defined contribution our all things considered prescriptions\n- but left clearly defined space for other important constraints to contribute to deliberations\n- I have argued that this is best done by defining feasibility in terms of circumstantial possibility\n- in the first instance, this meant showing that feasibility is not a function of other related characteristics, such as stability, probability of success, or moral costliness (but agreeing that these latter notions serve as important constraints on our judgments).\n- to give further support to the claim that feasibility is best defined in terms of circumstantial possibility, I constructed a framework that yields natural feasibility judgments using only the resources provided by a familiar definition of circumstantial accessibility\n- importantly, my framework is able to account for both a dichotomous sense and a continuous sense of feasibility.\n- work to be done ADVANCE\n- framework is schematic and flexible\n- last two are issues for any account of feasibility\n
  • \n
  • Feasibility RSSS

    1. 1. Feasibility in Political Philosophy:Mapping the Conceptual TerrainANU Philosophy David Wiens22 September 2011 Australian National University
    2. 2. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S can be realized given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    3. 3. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S can be realized given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    4. 4. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S can be realized given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    5. 5. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S can be realized given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    6. 6. All-things- consideredjudgments about what to do
    7. 7. All-things- Delimit our moral considered duties to addressjudgments about some injustice what to do
    8. 8. Practical Moral Feasibility Feasibility All-things- Delimit our moral considered duties to addressjudgments about some injustice what to do
    9. 9. Practical Moral Feasibility Feasibility All-things- Delimit our moralWork to considered duties to addressbe done judgments about some injustice what to do Core Circumstantialnotion possibility
    10. 10. Practical Moral Feasibility Feasibility All-things- Delimit our moralWork to considered duties to addressbe done judgments about some injustice what to do Circumstantial Core Circumstantial possibility +notion possibility limit on morally required costs
    11. 11. circumstantial possibility
    12. 12. Cohen (2009) Lawford-Smith (2010) Gilabert and Lawford-Smith (forthcoming) stabilitycircumstantial possibility
    13. 13. Cohen (2009) Lawford-Smith (2010) Gilabert and Lawford-Smith (forthcoming) stability circumstantial possibilitymoral costliness Raïkka (1998)
    14. 14. Brennan and Southwood (2007) Cohen (2009)Lawford-Smith (2010) Lawford-Smith (2010) Gilabert and Lawford-Smith (forthcoming) probability stability circumstantial possibility moral costliness Raïkka (1998)
    15. 15. Conformity with moral principles NormativeDesirabilityMoral costliness
    16. 16. Conformity with moral principles NormativeDesirabilityMoral costlinessStability EmpiricalEfficacyProbabilityFeasibilityEfficiency
    17. 17. Conformity with moral principles NormativeDesirabilityMoral costlinessStability EmpiricalEfficacyProbabilityFeasibilityEfficiency
    18. 18. Conformity with moral principles NormativeDesirabilityMoral costlinessStability EmpiricalEfficacyProbabilityFeasibilityEfficiency
    19. 19. Rank(φ) = β1 C(φ) + β2 D(φ) + β3 MC(φ) + β4 S(φ) + β5 Efficacy(φ) +β6 P(φ) + β7 F(φ) + β8 Efficiency(φ)
    20. 20. Rank(φ) = β1 C(φ) + β2 D(φ) + β3 MC(φ) + β4 S(φ) + β5 Efficacy(φ) +β6 P(φ) + β7 F(φ) + β8 Efficiency(φ) F (φ) = g[CP(φ), MC(φ), S(φ), P(φ)]Rank(φ) = β1 C(φ) + β2 D(φ) + β3 MC(φ) + β4 S(φ) + β5 Efficacy(φ) +β6 P(φ) + β7 g[CP(φ), MC(φ), S(φ), P(φ)] + β8 Efficiency(φ)
    21. 21. Conformity with moral principles NormativeDesirabilityMoral costlinessStability EmpiricalEfficacyProbabilityFeasibilityEfficiency
    22. 22. Conformity with moral principles NormativeDesirabilityMoral costlinessStability EmpiricalEfficacyProbabilityFeasibilityEfficiency
    23. 23. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case theworld at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    24. 24. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case theworld at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    25. 25. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case theworld at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    26. 26. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims.
    27. 27. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    28. 28. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be “But we can see that stability is in fact stably realized. part of the package of feasibility considerations by noticing that getting ‘there’, if we stay there for only a short while, does not really look like a case of ‘getting there’ at all. Stability is clearly important to the question of political futures, and discussion of feasibility should include it.” (Gilabert and Lawford-Smith forthcoming)
    29. 29. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    30. 30. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be Unemployment rate stably realized. GDP per capita
    31. 31. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be Unemployment rate stably realized. GDP per capita
    32. 32. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be Unemployment rate stably realized. GDP per capita
    33. 33. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be Unemployment rate stably realized. GDP per capita
    34. 34. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S can be stably realized.
    35. 35. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S can be stably realized.
    36. 36. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S can be stably realized.
    37. 37. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S can be stably realized.
    38. 38. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S can be stably realized.
    39. 39. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible if S can be stably realized.
    40. 40. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible if S can be stably realized.
    41. 41. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    42. 42. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    43. 43. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    44. 44. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    45. 45. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be stably realized.
    46. 46. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be “But we can see that stability is in fact stably realized. part of the package of feasibility considerations by noticing that getting ‘there’, if we stay there for only a short while, does not really look like a case of ‘getting there’ at all. Stability is clearly important to the question of political futures, and discussion of feasibility should include it.” (Gilabert and Lawford-Smith forthcoming)
    47. 47. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be “But we can see that stability is in fact stably realized. part of the package of feasibility considerations by noticing that getting ‘there’, if we stay there for only a short while, does not really look like a case of ‘getting there’ at all. Stability is clearly important to the question of political futures, and discussion of feasibility should include it.” (Gilabert and Lawford-Smith forthcoming)
    48. 48. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims.
    49. 49. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be“Among other meanings, ‘feasible’ means realized without‘capable of being successfully used.’ Given excessivethis meaning, it makes sense to say that a moral cost.social ideal is not feasible, even if it is capableof being implemented, that is, even if it ispossible. To decide whether an ideal iscapable of being successfully used is to makea normative decision. Therefore, literallyspeaking, there is nothing wrong withclaiming that a social ideal is not feasiblebecause the necessary moral costs ofchangeover to the ideal are so serious thatthe ideal cannot be successfullyimplemented.” (Raïkka 1998)
    50. 50. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be“Among other meanings, ‘feasible’ means realized without‘capable of being successfully used.’ Given excessivethis meaning, it makes sense to say that a moral cost.social ideal is not feasible, even if it is capableof being implemented, that is, even if it ispossible. To decide whether an ideal iscapable of being successfully used is to makea normative decision. Therefore, literallyspeaking, there is nothing wrong withclaiming that a social ideal is not feasiblebecause the necessary moral costs ofchangeover to the ideal are so serious thatthe ideal cannot be successfullyimplemented.” (Raïkka 1998)
    51. 51. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be“Among other meanings, ‘feasible’ means realized without‘capable of being successfully used.’ Given excessivethis meaning, it makes sense to say that a moral cost.social ideal is not feasible, even if it is capableof being implemented, that is, even if it ispossible. To decide whether an ideal iscapable of being successfully used is to makea normative decision. Therefore, literallyspeaking, there is nothing wrong withclaiming that a social ideal is not feasiblebecause the necessary moral costs ofchangeover to the ideal are so serious thatthe ideal cannot be successfullyimplemented.” (Raïkka 1998)
    52. 52. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be“Among other meanings, ‘feasible’ means realized without‘capable of being successfully used.’ Given excessivethis meaning, it makes sense to say that a moral cost.social ideal is not feasible, even if it is capableof being implemented, that is, even if it ispossible. To decide whether an ideal iscapable of being successfully used is to makea normative decision. Therefore, literallyspeaking, there is nothing wrong withclaiming that a social ideal is not feasiblebecause the necessary moral costs ofchangeover to the ideal are so serious thatthe ideal cannot be successfullyimplemented.” Raïkka (1998)
    53. 53. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in case S can be“Among other meanings, ‘feasible’ means realized without‘capable of being successfully used.’ Given excessivethis meaning, it makes sense to say that a moral cost.social ideal is not feasible, even if it is capableof being implemented, that is, even if it ispossible. To decide whether an ideal iscapable of being successfully used is to makea normative decision. Therefore, literallyspeaking, there is nothing wrong withclaiming that a social ideal is not feasiblebecause the necessary moral costs ofchangeover to the ideal are so serious thatthe ideal cannot be successfullyimplemented.” Raïkka (1998)
    54. 54. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims.
    55. 55. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible just in “[I]t is not enough that a pathway [to the case S is likely prescribed state of affairs] merely exist, to be realized. that pathway has in addition to be reasonably likely to lead from ‘here’ to ‘there’. Imagine that a theory requires an outcome for which there is a pathway, but along which the chance of our taking each of the steps is very low, and thus the chance of the outcome is very low indeed. We shouldn’t say that outcome is more feasible than another with a higher chance of success.” (Lawford-Smith 2010)
    56. 56. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized.
    57. 57. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized.
    58. 58. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized.
    59. 59. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized. Edward M. Kennedy
    60. 60. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized. High conditional probability of success Lower conditional probability of success Edward M. Kennedy
    61. 61. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized. High conditional probability of success Low probability of support Lower conditional probability of success High probability of support Edward M. Kennedy
    62. 62. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized. High conditional probability of success Low probability of support LESS FEASIBLE Lower conditional probability of success High probability of support MORE FEASIBLE Edward M. Kennedy
    63. 63. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. Target: S is feasible only if S is likely to be realized. High conditional probability of success Low probability of support LESS FEASIBLE Lower conditional probability of success High probability of support MORE FEASIBLE Edward M. Kennedy
    64. 64. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. probability stability circumstantial possibility moral costliness
    65. 65. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. circumstantial possibility
    66. 66. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. circumstantial possibility
    67. 67. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims.
    68. 68. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S can be realized given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    69. 69. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S can be realized given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. A state of affairs S is accessible if there is “a practicable route from where we are now to at least a reasonable approximation” of S. (Buchanan 2004)
    70. 70. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims.
    71. 71. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S is accessible from current conditions given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    72. 72. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case S is accessible from current conditions given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. A world w′ is circumstantially accessible from another world w just in case the relevant facts at w do not rule out w′. (Kratzer 1981,1991)
    73. 73. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims.
    74. 74. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility.2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    75. 75. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Intrinsic Extrinsic
    76. 76. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Intrinsic Extrinsic
    77. 77. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Intrinsic Extrinsic
    78. 78. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Extrinsic
    79. 79. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic
    80. 80. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic Resource availability
    81. 81. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic Resource availability Institutional capacity
    82. 82. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic Resource availability Institutional capacity Social and cultural factors
    83. 83. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic Resource availability Institutional capacity Social and cultural factors
    84. 84. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic Resource availability Institutional capacity Social and cultural factors
    85. 85. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs. Environment Technology Cognitive capabilities Intrinsic Motivational capacities Extrinsic Resource availability Institutional capacity Social and cultural factors
    86. 86. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    87. 87. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    88. 88. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    89. 89. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    90. 90. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology @ = [0,0]
    91. 91. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. w = [T(w),M(w)] Technology @ = [0,0]
    92. 92. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. w = [T(w),M(w)] Technology @ = [0,0]
    93. 93. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. w = [T(w),M(w)] Technology @ = [0,0]
    94. 94. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    95. 95. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    96. 96. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    97. 97. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    98. 98. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    99. 99. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Precise formulation A state of affairs S is feasible just in case the world at which S is realized is connected to the actual world via a sequence of worlds, each accessible Technology from the previous one given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to realize alternate states of affairs.
    100. 100. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    101. 101. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    102. 102. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    103. 103. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    104. 104. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. FEASIBLE! Technology
    105. 105. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. FEASIBLE! Technology
    106. 106. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. INFEASIBLE! Technology
    107. 107. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    108. 108. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    109. 109. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    110. 110. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    111. 111. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    112. 112. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    113. 113. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Number of paths Technology
    114. 114. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Number of paths Complexity of paths Technology
    115. 115. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Number of paths Complexity of paths Costliness of paths Technology
    116. 116. 1. Feasibility is just circumstantial possibility. A state of affairs S is feasible2. A framework for evaluating feasibility claims. just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Number of paths Complexity of paths Costliness of paths Extent of deviation Technology
    117. 117. A state of affairs S is feasible just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity toMotivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    118. 118. 1. Which limitations matter? A state of affairs S is feasible When do they matter? just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    119. 119. 1. Which limitations matter? A state of affairs S is feasible When do they matter? just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from2. Which paths are ruled out? the actual world given the salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology
    120. 120. 1. Which limitations matter? A state of affairs S is feasible When do they matter? just in case the world at which S is realized is accessible from2. Which paths are ruled out? the actual world given the3. Stringency of feasibility constraints? salient limitations on the relevant agents’ capacity to Motivation realize alternate states of affairs. Technology

    ×