Historlosophy

[flammableBen]

So you're looking at the past to see the events which could have lead up to the present. There are two possible pasts, both of which, through the events involved in them, lead up to the present we have today. It doesn't really matter how similar or different they are.

Code:

          TIMELINE
          
        |           |
  Past 1|           |Past 2
        |           |
        |           |
        |           |
         \         /
          \       /
           \     /
            \   /
             \ /
              V
              |
              |
              |
           Present

Now as these pasts lead up too an identical present, there's obviously no observable evidence to say either one of them is more "true" than the other.

If both pasts lead to the exact same consequences, did either or both happen? If the actions I performed today have no observable differences tomorrow compared to the actions I didn't perform today, which ones did I do?

[pauld]

If you enjoy this kind of speculation, you should pile into Bishop Berkley and his phenomenalist chums "How do I know the table's still there when I leave the room?" kind of malarkey. or if the interest is more in the "divergent streams of history" angle, you should ferret out some of the "counterfactual history" stuff that was quite the thing about 15 years or so ago. There was a series of books "What If?" that looked at how decisive episodes in history might have turned out if some of the supposedly causal factors had been absent ("Would Ironside have gained power in Germany if the Versailles Treaty had been less harsh?" kind of thing). Both angles are a good read although I seem to remember wanting to batter Bishop Berkley with the table leg at one point.

[land_of_bo]

If you enjoy this kind of speculation, you should pile into Bishop Berkley and his phenomenalist chums "How do I know the table's still there when I leave the room?" kind of malarkey. or if the interest is more in the "divergent streams of history" angle, you should ferret out some of the "counterfactual history" stuff that was quite the thing about 15 years or so ago. There was a series of books "What If?" that looked at how decisive episodes in history might have turned out if some of the supposedly causal factors had been absent ("Would Ironside have gained power in Germany if the Versailles Treaty had been less harsh?" kind of thing). Both angles are a good read although I seem to remember wanting to batter Bishop Berkley with the table leg at one point.

That made you want to bash the bishop...whatever turns you on paul.

[Reg Smeeton]

 Paul....do you remember Connections by James Burke on the box?

 Shame this sort of thing is no longer done....

[pauld]

Paul....do you remember Connections by James Burke on the box?

Astonishingly despite my old fart demeanour I think I was actually too young for it

Shame this sort of thing is no longer done....

Ah, but all those old interesting and stimulating programmes had to go to make room for wall-to-wall celebrity career relaunch vehicles and "reality" chav watching 

[Reg Smeeton]

Think Connections was about 78....certainly provided a lot of food for thought.

[nevillew]

Yep, I remember the series, but not much of the content now.

Haven't Clarkson, and May, done less intellectually challenging versions of the same thing ?