Autoinfanticide Is No Biggie: The Reinstatement Reply to Vihvelin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I really enjoyed this paper. It's an interesting proposal and a well-constructed piece of philosophy. The writing is clear and I found the simplification to Good and Bad Suzy worlds really helpful. It strikes me as an eminently suitable contribution to a special volume on time travel.
Author Response
Response: thank you for your kind comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Line 213: remove second ‘is’.
Line 342: I suspect this paragraph can be deleted. It is challenging for the reader since it appeals to some Lewisian views that have not been explicated and is ultimately irrelevant anyway, since the author’s ultimate argument is that the ‘harder’ way to make it true that Suzy can kill baby Suzy are still acceptable, so why not just bypass the ‘too easy’ way? In other words, treat the next paragraph as an objection to the claim that Suzy can kill baby Suzy.
Given that in what immediately follows the author ultimately rejects a not so good Lewis style solution, I also suspect the author could delete lines 365-428. In addition, it is not the case that the rejected solution is constructive, i.e. that seeing why it is wrong helps us see the way to a correct solution. Hence, it is tangential to the author's main argument. Perhaps just put in a footnote that one might try to appeal to Lewis’ inconstancy of de re modal judgements, but that solution will have problems of its own, that can be avoided and just move directly to section 3.1.
Line 356: “by hypothesis Good Suzy has no shared stages”. I wonder if this is going to cause a problem later on for determining relevant counterparts.. Bad Suzy is really two overlapping people—if she kills baby Suzy and is reinstated this fact is revealed—even Lewis does not want to say that killing and subsequent reinstatement is what caused there to be two overlapping people before the killing. (though if Lewis sticks to his guns and says a person just is a maximal aggregate of R-related stages, then he might be forced to this bad conclusion.) But if Good Suzy is not two overlapping people, then presumably one might argue that what is relevant to what Good Suzy can do, who is not two people, is whatever, someone who is not an overlapping person can do. But such a person, even if they have a back-up cannot be reinstated. [Note that deleting the sections suggested above would remove this issue, though this paragraph would still need some rewriting to make it fit with what was now coming after.]
[At some point around here the author may want to remind the reader that the object is to see if Lewis can defend himself against Vihvelin without necessarily thereby endorsing Lewis’s views]
Line 402: remove “in” from “in which”
Line 447: either replace “just” with “last” or add “last” between “just” and “week”.
Line 455: Add a “can” somewhere in the first sentence?
Line 493: Remove “I” from end of line
Line 503: Make clear to the reader that the “But…” is not introducing a reply to Vihvelin’s granting, but rather a possible way for Vihvelin to use a further aspect of Lewis, namely his account of truth in fiction, to argue that the granting still doesn’t get the desired result for Lewis.
Line 513: Double check whether the author means “on behalf of” rather than “in behalf of”
Line 693: Footnote 13, line 3: replace ‘bak’ with ‘back’.
Line 770: Insert “rather” before “than”?
Line 810: “Given a real attempt …. what ordinary occurrence stops her from succeeding? The miracle in question is looking bigger and bigger.” This just strikes me as too fast and perhaps misleading given that the author is trying to discount the ‘bigger’ metaphor with respect to miracles. For example, what is the status of : the car next door backfires which startles Bad Suzy so she releases her grip and Baby Suzy wakes up and starts crying which causes parents to start upstairs and Bad Suzy flees before doing the deed..” Is the car backfiring a big miracle? Unduly gratuitous? The reader needs more here.
Line 874: “Instead Vihvelin postulates that Bad Suzy World has different, foiling laws that are not a matter of fail-sage present in Good Suzy World.” [Not clear to me that, given the passage quoted from Vivhelin at least that that is what she postulates—need more here.]
Author Response
These are excellent comments, and I have responded to each by agreeing with the referee's proposed changes. I have accordingly deleted two sections of argument (para beginning original line 342, and lines 365 to 428). In the latter case, instead of including a footnote per referee's suggestion, I thought the brief reference to inconstancy fits better in the main text.
Referee asked for more explanation at original lines 810 and 874. Accordingly, I have added extra sentences to both sections.
