PUMPKIN LOAF & METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY
INTRO
In this video, I want to talk about metaphysical indeterminacy. The world itself is said to be fuzzy, indefinite, or vague. Let's clarify this from other kinds of indetermiancy.

First, saying that the world itself is indeterminate is not to say that our knowledge of the world is indeterminate, that is, we lack information about objects, properties, relations, or the facts of the world. In saying that there is METAPHYSICAL INDETERMINACY, we are not talking about what we know or don't know. We are making a claim about the world itself. 

Second, saying that the world itself is indeterminate is also not to say that our characterization or our way of representating of the world is indeterminate. Things aren't fuzzy because our words fail to adequately express the precise nature of the real world. Rather, when someone says that there is metaphysical indeterminacy, they are saying that while our words may be fuzzy, there is also fuzziness in the world. So, even if we walked around with a totally precise ideas in our head, there would certain fuzzy facts in the world that resist precise formulation. 

In short, when someone says (1) there is metaphysical indeterminacy, they are saying that indeterminacy is not merely (1) epistemic - having to do with our knowledge and (2) not merely semantic - having to do with how we represent the world. What people are saying when they say there is metaphysical indeterminacy is that the world itself (the facts, objects, properties, or relations found in the world) are indeterminate. 

Now this is a really controversial idea since many argue (1) that there simply is no metaphysical indeterminacy (and all indeterminacy is of the epistemic or semantic variety) or (2) that idea or concept of metaphysical indeterminacy is incoherent. 

It is somewhat difficult to give a precise conceptual analysis of metaphysical indeterminacy so I want to, instead, give you an ostensive definition of it. That is, I want to point out just a few things that are said to be metaphysically indeterminate. 

In addition though, I also promised some people that I would do a video where I make a pumpkin loaf. So, let me start with the recipe, and while the pumpkin loaf cooks, we'll return to a discussion of metaphysical indeterminacy. I'll put timestamps below if you want to skip the cooking portion of this video.

******************************

0. Pumpkin Loaf
In a few other videos, I talk about how much I love Starbuck's Pumpkin Loaf. Objectively, it is probably a terrible dessert, both health wise and in terms of taste, but as a person with poor taste, I love it! Because I love it so much, I wanted to make it myself and so I've been experimenting with variations of it over the years. 

So, let's make it! Here is what you need (ingredients and directions listed in the description)

- The Ingredients
1.5 or 1.3 cups sugar
1 (15oz) can pumpkin puree
0.5 - .75 cup canola oil (you can use 1.5 sticks of softened butter instead of oil)
3 eggs
1 tbs pumpkin pie spice extract
1.5 tsps baking powder
.75 tsps baking soda
0.5 tsps salt
2 cups flour
pepitas
Optional: you could use 0.5tsp of cloves, 0.5tsp cinnamon, 0.5tsp of nutmeg instead of (or in addition to) pumpkin pie extract

- Directions
1. Whisk dry ingredients (spices, baking powder, baking soda, salt) in small bowl
2. Whisk sugar and oil (or beat butter until combined) in large bowl 
3. Add eggs (one at a time), beat until fluffy
4. Whisk in pumpkin puree and pumpkin pie extract in large bowl
3. Add contents from small bowl into large bowl and mix
4. Fold in flour in increments with spatula into large bowl
5. Pour contents into some sort of loaf tin (coat pan with butter / spray / oil), cupcakes, etc.
6. Optional: sprinkle pepitas on top (as desired)
7. Preheat oven to 350
8. Bake for 50-60 minutes (ready when you poke with toothpick and it comes out clean)
9. Let rest in pan for 10 minutes. Then Remove from pan and let cool.


- Notes
1. In the past I've made a glaze for the loaf instead of using pepitas. I find glazes to be gross but you might try this out for a more gooey, sugary alternative.
2. When I made pumpkin loaf cupcakes, I've made a vanilla frosting. They were received well, but I don't like frosting so you this is something else you might try.

******************************

Ok. While the pumpkin loaf cooks, let's look at some examples of metaphysical indeterminacy.

1. The parts of ordinary objects.
A classic example involves ordinary objects, e.g. mountains, clouds, even your body. Take Mount Kilimanjaro, a famous mountain / dead volcano located in Tanzania. Certainly there are objects that are not a part of Kilimanjaro, e.g. my hand, this cloud right here. Other objects are clearly parts of the mountain, e.g. the rock in middle of the mountain. However, some might contend that it is metaphysically indeterminate whether some objects are parts of the mountain. What about the loose dirt near the base of the mountain? What about the grass or trees on the mountain? Is the snow on the mountain part of the mountain or it like makeup on a person's face? All of these are candidates for metaphysical indeterminacy. It is neither definitely the case that they are parts nor definitely the case that they are not parts. 

You can do this for a lot of ordinary things.

** Pumpkin loaf.
Take the delicious Pumpkin Loaf we are currently making. Remember that we put pepitas on top. Are the pepitas part of the loaf? You might say, sure. They are stuck to the loaf, but when we take the loaf out of the oven, some of those pepitas will surely fall off the loaf? Are the pepitas disconnected from the loaf mass still parts of the loaf? It might not be clear if they are or they aren't. Now suppose I became omniscient. 

*** Body
Look at your own body. Some parts of your body seem to be part of you, but others are not so clearly parts of you. Is your hair, your finger nails? What about loose hairs on your head? What about the oil on your skin or dirt under your fingernails? What about the bacteria on your fingertips? Let's say you eat a piece of this pumpkin loaf we are about to make and you don't chew. That chunk of loaf is in your body. Is it a PART of your body?

The claim then is that there are certain objects that it is metaphysically indeterminate whether they are a part of some object. And, it is claimed, this indeterminacy is not an epistemic or merely semantic matter. We might know everything there is to know about pumpkin loafs and still be unable to decide whether the pepitas are a part of the loaf. In addition, we might say that while our language about the loaf is imprecise, there is a good reason for that, and the reason is that our indeterminate language is actually reflecting an indeterminate reality.

1.1. Relatedly, we could talk of the spatial boundaries of the mountain, the loaf, or of you. The section of space where you end and begin.

2. Coming into and Going out of Existence
When do objects come in and go out of existence? Take our pumpkin loaf. When does it become a pumpkin loaf? When I mix the ingredients together? Maybe. I might say "let's put the loaf in the oven". But maybe I'm speaking loosely here. There isn't a loaf, there is just a tin of batter. OK. What about when the batter has been baking? Sure. But when? 1s, 2s, 1minute, 3minutes, 30minutes, after it is out the oven? There seems to be no precise instant of time when the ingredients become a loaf. Those that believe in metaphysical indeterminacy will say that this is not due to our ignorance about loafs. Even if we knew everything there is to know, it would still be indefinite as to when the batter becomes a loaf. The reason we can give no precise answer is because the world itself is indeterminate or fuzzy.

The same can be said about things going out of existence. When is the loaf no longer a loaf? Our pumpkin loaf is surely a pumpkin loaf when it has been baked, is in one piece, and before it is eaten. Does it still exist as a loaf if we cut half of the loaf into slices? We might say "sure" but only half of the loaf exists. What about if we cut the entire loaf into slices? Here it is starting to become unclear. On the one hand, we might say "yes, the loaf still exists as slices". And, if we pushed the slices back together, then we might be more inclined to say "yes". On the other hand, it seems that while the bread still exists, the loaf does not. 

But let's think about it in a different way. Suppose I start nibbling at the loaf from the end like some kind of small animal. Surely one small nibble doesn't turn a loaf into a non-loaf. Surely one small nibble doesn't kill the loaf or cause it to cease to exist. But, if that is the case, then another nibble doesn't change the loaf into a non-loaf. Because, as we said, single nibbles don't turn the loaf into a non-loaf. It is too small of a difference. But if we keep nibbling on the loaf, there will be no more loaf left. And surely it makes no sense to say there is still a loaf when we've eaten the entire thing! So, at some point in the process of eating the loaf, it went out of existence. But where? Proponents of metaphysical indeterminacy might say that even if we knew everything, we wouldn't be able to point to the precise moment when the loaf goes out of existence. This is because there is no precise moment. When the loaf goes out of existence is metaphysically indeterminate. 

These same ideas can be applied to persons. When did you come into existence? There is a time when you definitely did not exist (e.g. the 1800s). You didn't exist as anything. If you are essentially a person, and zygotes are not persons, then you never existed as a zygote. When you were six years old, you were definitely a person. But there are many intermediate cases. Is a fetus a metaphysical person? 
- If your answer is yes, then simply look at an earlier point in time. When did you become a person? At conception? When is this? Take the so-called flash of light at the moment of conception / fertilization (that is, the radiating burst of zinc outside the human egg when fetilization occurs - visible under a microscope using fluorescensce ). This occurs over a period of time? What is the precise milisecond in this process become a person? 
- If your answer is no, then take a slightly later point in time. Were you a person as a fetus in late stage development? At birth? What exact moment of birth? 

Perhaps this is a precise (determinate) time, e.g. when you become ensouled by the creator. But barring these types of answers, your coming into existence appears to be a candidate for the way the world itself could be indeterminate.

Credit Northwestern University:  https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-captured-the-actual-flash-of-light-that-sparks-when-sperm-meets-an-egg
Credit Northwestern News: https://vimeo.com/163864531

At least for some people, there is no precise fact of the matter as to when a person comes into existence.  and there are times when you definitely do exist (e.g. right now). But the precise moment at which you came into existence is metaphysically indeterminate. It isn't clear. It is a fuzzy matter.

3. Metaphysics of Time
Will our pumpkin loaf be delicious? Some people think that the future does not already exist and is open. What does the world have to say about whether this pumpkin loaf will be delicious (delicious at at time later than this one)? Well, both of these seem true: (1) It is compatible with how things are now that the loaf is gross and (2) it is compatible with how things are now that the loaf is delicious. That is, the present state of affairs and the laws of nature do not determine, one way or another whether the loaf will be delicious or not. There is nothing about the world that can decide the matter. It will be decided by future events that are themselves not yet decided. Another way we might put this is that it is metaphysically indeterminate whether the loaf will be delicious. 

4. Metaphysical Indeterminacy.
I want to conclude with a couple of remarks.

First, all of the above examples are controversial. There are powerful arguments against metaphysical indeterminacy. As mentioned, some people think the notion itself is incoherent. I'll leave a link in the description to an argument that covers some of these arguments.

Second, I haven't actually given you a precise definition of metaphysical indeterminacy. Instead, I've simply pointed to some possible scenarios and said "this looks like it might be metaphysically indeterminate". I've defined it by ostension. There is some reason to think that, perhaps, giving a definition might be a pretty difficult task since the examples I've given thus far are pretty heterogeneous in nature. Having fuzzy spatial or temporal boundaries seems a lot different than there being no fact of the matter about the future.
************


SOURCES
- Barnes, Elizabeth. 2010. “Arguments Against Metaphysical Indeterminacy and Vagueness: Metaphysical Indeterminacy and Vagueness.” Philosophy Compass 5 (11): 953–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00348.x.
- Williams, J. Robert G. 2008. “Ontic Vagueness and Metaphysical Indeterminacy.” Philosophy Compass 3 (4): 763–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2008.00151.x.
- There are two books I highly recommend on vagueness. The first is Timothy Williamson's 
- Photo of Mount Kilimanjaro - by David Daniel Turner (https://www.flickr.com/photos/69659100@N03/16405340230/). CC via Wikipedia.
- Music: Club by Andrew Huang