SEP reading on possibility and actuality
This thread is for a read through of two SEP articles on possibility and actuality. The articles are:
1. Possible Worlds
2. The Possibilism-Actualism Debate
I realize this topic can be controversial, but please don't drown out the discussion the thread is intended for.
1. Possible Worlds
2. The Possibilism-Actualism Debate
I realize this topic can be controversial, but please don't drown out the discussion the thread is intended for.
Comments (708)
I admire your confidence in being willing to tackle 60 intricate SEP pages about a generally controversial and deeply complex topic.
I know. After saying that it's probably just going to be me commenting on the SEP. :grimace:
Hey, how badly can we mangle it?
An actual possibility, but hopefully not.
The first section begins with a discussion of logic. The author presents the term "extension." This is not meant in the Cartesian sense as the length or width of an object; rather, extension in this context is what is being referred to, or denoted, by a "term." The extension of a "sentence" is its truth value; that is, presumably, whether the sentence is true or false.
1.1
Next we get a discussion of "substitutivity principles." I do not quite understand what is meant by "extensional logic" even though a definition is proffered. That being said, extensional logics seem to be characterized by being subject to substitutivity principles.
As I understand it, a substitutivity principle means the following: if two sentences are co-extensional, that is, they refer to the same truth values, that is to say they are logically equivalent sentences, then the addition of the same logical operators to both sentences will affect the truth value of both sentences in the same way, so that they retain the same extensionality and therefore each sentence can be substituted one for the other without changing the truth value.
The main point here, unless I am misreading, appears to be that modal logic (logic that uses the necessarily and possibly operators) is intensional, not extensional. Or in other words, logically equivalent modal sentences may not retain the same truth values if they are both modulated by the same operation.
Boxes and diamonds: An open introduction to Modal Logic
as a companion to this thread.
HTML at https://bd.openlogicproject.org/bd-screen.pdf
Here's the definition of extensionality, from p.205, Appendix A:
Definition A.1 (Extensionality). If A and B are sets, then A=B iff every element of A is also an element of B , and vice versa.
It's the rule that these are all, extensionally, the very same: {a, a, b }= {a, b }= {b, a}.
And if the item a is also called "Fred", the they are extensionally the same as {Fred, b}.
Quoting NotAristotle
Better, that it was thought to be intensional, until Kripke. Read on.
Quoting NotAristotle
Thanks for starting us out. I think you're right that we could think of possible worlds as opposed to actual, but in this context, we're following Leibniz, who allowed that the actual world is a possible world. What we would say is that the states of affairs associated with the actual world obtain. So they happened. This impacts the way we verify statements. We would say statements associated with the actual world will be verified by looking around us, so to speak. The statements of a possible world that does not obtain might have to be verified using logical or metaphysical possibility. For instance, in the possible world where Nixon lost the election, he wouldn't be living in the White House. You can imagine the various aspects of verifying that statement: "After Nixon lost, he wasn't living in the White House."
So we've brought up this terminology:
1. Statements
2. States of affairs
3. Verification
4. Obtain vs non-obtaining
5. Propositions
I'll note that I have an affinity for thinking in terms of propositions, which I think of referring to the elements of a community's bank of common ideas. I don't worry a lot about the ontological status of it, I don't know how it works. I just know it's part of how I think about ideas that count as abstract objects. They don't belong to me. They belong to the community. I can be wrong about them, and so on.
If we need to go back and explore any of the above terms, we can do that. Keep in mind that each one is a long rabbit hole, so we may start other threads if it becomes too boggy.
Thoughts?
I am a self-avowed pragmatist. Can somebody explain how I might use model logic to solve problems or clarify concepts.
Uses for modal logic
In philosophy
In engineering
Extending back to Socrates, there's an aspect of philosophy that is essentially a reflection on how we humans think. The highlights are points where we feel like we may have pulled the veil back on the underpinnings, or clarified something. The reasons a person might be compelled to explore this sort of thing are probably going to be personal, but with a connection to cultural events.
If you don't have this sort of need to understand, it's probably going to seem pretty useless. Your question reminds of the lament of the founder of Manichaeism that he was trying to make a new religion, but the local authorities were only concerned with whether or not he was healing people of disease. Diverging priorities. What can we do?
Thanks
Thank you
As a self proclaimed naturalist and a zealot follower of Wittgenstein, if you interested in Kripkean modal semantics and how its rigidity distorts what science actually discovers and how language is actually used, I would most happy present my lengthy criticisms on this type of thinking and its application. But i think this thread wants to enlighten these views, not critique them.
In this first paragraph, the author of this article, Christopher Menzel, lays out the problem that possible world semantics was supposed to address:
Quoting Possible Worlds, SEP
So the point was to add modal logic to first order logic. The problem was that modal logic had never been rigorously developed in the way first order logic had been, plus there was skepticism about its content:
Thoughts?
Quoting frank
Sounds right to me. To use the language of the article, I think "possible world semantics" is supposed to change "modal logic" from an "intensional" into an "extensional" language (EDIT: Or as I read further, to subject modal logic to an "extensional semantic theory"). [s]Or, put differently, to change modal logic so that it is subject to "substitutivity principles."[/s]
The term "semantics" is a question mark for me here because semantics has to do with meaning, right? So how does meaning factor into a formal logical system?
The problem we ran into with the extensionality of modal logic concerned the fact that modal logic appeared to not be subject to classical substitutivity principles. An ostensibly more accurate statement would be that classical substitutivity does not hold when first order logic Tarskian interpretation is attempted to be translated into modal logic's possible worlds interpretation.
A Tarskian interpretation appears to apply only to the actual world. Thus, the author says that the Tarskian interpretation: "fixes the domain of quantification and the extension of all predicates." Tarskian interpretation, with its own semantics, does not appear to allow for possibility. That is why a possible world semantics was proposed for modal logic.
To try to simplify some of the symbolism in the article, the "possibly" quantifier: quantifies over a set of statements that themselves refer to states of affairs that are true about at least one possible world (w). The "necessarily" quantifier: quantifies over a set of statements that refer to states of affairs that are true of the set of all possible worlds (u).
It seems to me that substitutivity principles can be maintained within a possible world semantics applied to modal logic, but that a Tarskian interpretation of first order logic cannot be reconciled with possible world semantics.
I think your EDIT is the proper interpretation. It makes modal logic the subject of an extensional logic. Here's a quote from the referenced supplement at the end of 1.2:
"As noted, possible world semantics does not make modal logic itself extensional; the substitutivity principles all remain invalid for modal languages under (basic) possible worlds semantics. Rather, it is the semantic theory itself — more exactly, the logic in which the theory is expressed — that is extensional."
No, I don't think a proposition is something we necessarily agree on. It's a truthbearer. It's the content of a thought or belief, for instance if John believes that grass is green, then the content of his belief is that grass is green, and that's a proposition. The alternative to propositions would be Davidson's system, which uses sentences.
Quoting NotAristotle
I think the point was to be rigorous about the meaning of certain statements, and that was lacking for modal statements. So they wanted a logical system that would specify the meaning of "It is possible that grass is green" or "It is necessary that grass is green."
Quoting NotAristotle
Why is that?
Quoting frank
I was thinking it is because the Tarskian interpretation of the extension(s) referenced by a quantifier does not account for possibility.
Sure thing, my critique would begin with natural kinds, and the “infamous” example “water is h2o”.
"Statement" and "proposition" are often used interchangeably. You just have to determine what the author means.
From the article:
Quoting SEP | Possible Worlds | 1.0
There is a notable presupposition occurring here. It is the presupposition that natural language yields to formal language in terms of semantic rigor. The author, Christopher Menzel, is saying that Tarski's "elegant semantics" provided "truth" with semantic rigor in first-order logic, and that there was a desire to mimic this move by providing an "elegant semantics" for natural-language words like "necessarily" and "possibly," thus furnishing them with the same sort of semantic rigor that Tarski achieved.
The underlying question has to do with the relative value of natural and formal languages (see for example the edit to ). A second question has to do with the role of metaphysics in language and logic, and Quine's "skepticism" pertains to this second question. The formalization of the concept of "truth" vis-a-vis (formal) language was driven in large part by anti-metaphysicalists who wanted to reduce truth-questions to language-questions. Those same anti-metaphysicalists, such as Quine, were presumably less comfortable with modal terms given how much more difficult it is to maintain an anti-metaphysicalism while at the same time taking such terms seriously. Put more simply, modal language is too metaphysical for Quine's liking, and this in turn signifies that modal language will be even less amenable to formal semantics than truth language, namely because metaphysical inquiries and claims cannot be reduced to formalisms. These metaphysical "incursions" become more and more obvious as this tradition progresses, and especially so in your second SEP article. The rub lies in the fact that not everyone involved in these movements was an anti-metaphysicalist, at least to the same extent.
I think this is a good idea for a thread. The difficulty for my part lies in trying to understand how to interact with an encyclopedia entry.
Formal logic clearly differentiates semantics and syntax. At the core it's the difference between strings of letters in an accepted order and what those strings of letters stand for.
What follows is greatly simplified. The full story can be found in any introduction to logic.
So we can set out the whole of the syntax of predicate logic - the p's and q's - in a few brief rules.
1. We are allowed to write any letter p, q, r...
2. We can put a ~ in front of any thing we can write. So we can write ~p, ~q, and so on.
3. We can put a ^ between any two things we write. So we can write p ^ q, and we can write ~p ^ r
....and so on. If we stick to these rules we can't write things such as "p~^~".
A few simple rules like this sets out the syntax for propositional logic - the strings of letters that are allowed. These are called the well-formed formulae (WFFs). But it says nothing at all about the semantics, what those letters stand for. Thats the place of semantics. The p's and q's are taken to stand for sentences or propositions, the "^" stands for "and", the "~" for "not" and so on.
In predicate logic, we adopt the whole syntax of propositional logic, and add that were we write the p's and q's, we might write f(a) and g(a, b) and so on. This again is syntax, telling us only what we are allowed to write down, how the symbols used can be ordered, and nothing about what they stand for. We also include x, y, and so on as variable for individuals.
In predicate logic we give an interpretation by assigning individuals to the a's and b's. So "a" might stand for "NotAristotle" and "b" for "Australia" and so on. The process of giving an interpretation is more or less the process of constructing a model for the language. It's what determines what is true and what is false. So if we add that "g(x,y) is interpreted as "x is in y", then g(a,b) is just "NotAristotle is in Australia", and we have that g(a,b) will be true if and only if "NotAristotle is in Australia".
Again, note that syntax tells us what we can write, but not what is true and what is false. To decide what is true and what is false, we need a semantics, an interpretation of the symbols.
So we have the syntax, which is bunch of symbols and the rules for writing them. Then we have an interpretation, the rules for what those symbols stand for, in a given domain, a set of all the individuals. And together these make a model, a system that tells us which strings of letters are true and which are false. The model gives the truth values of the sentences or propositions of the language, the semantics of the formal language.
Quoting Banno
By this I understand you to be saying that the symbols need to refer to something (or predicate something) in the world (or in a possible world if we are using possible world semantics).
Roughly, yes. But it's freer than that. It's fine in a formal system to say things like "a" stands for a, perhaps in explaining what the " does in separating mention form use. The symbols do not have to denote actual-world entities.
So they can, but need not.
Simply, substitution fails.
Here's an example fo the sort of thing that threw Quine:
Note that the first sentence is modal - the modal operation "Necessarily" wraps around the whole of "eight is greater than seven". Now extensionality is simply the substitution of equal expressions. And "The number of planets =eight" expresses an equality. So we shoudl be able to substitute "The number of planets" for "eight". But that gives
[*] Necessarily, the number of planets is greater than seven
But that does not seem right - it might have been the case that there were only five planets, and the ancients thought.
So substitution fails, and the modal context is not extensional.
But possible world semantics gets around all this.
See this thread on Quine if you need more.
We can substitute in some sentences; so that since all john's dogs are mammals, by substitution we have that all John's pets are mammals. All good - truth is preserved, the context is extensional.
And we have
Of course this is true since all dogs are mammals. In no possible world does is there a dog that is nto a mammal.
but by substitution that gives
But he might have had a pet lizard.
Substitution fails in the modal sentence. And another name for such a failure is that the context is not extensional. Modal sentences are not extensional.
I appreciate the offer, but I’m already pretty much a skeptic. That’s not exactly right, it’s more like I don’t see the use of modal logic. Which isn’t to say I don’t think it might not have value for others.
Just a note on extension and intension. When I first learned about those ideas the word "definition" was attached.
An extensional definition of "John's cat" is John's cat, the actual fuzzy creature.
An intensional definition of "John's cat" would be more like a dictionary definition. It's the Siamese feline that belongs to John.
An extensional definition of "purple" is the set of all purple things. In other words, the extension of "purple" is not sense data, or some mental state, it's a set of all the things that can be described as purple.
An intensional definition of "purple" is a color on the high end of the visible spectrum, and so on.
So when we say modal logic wasn't extensional, it's that the items mentioned in modal expressions didn't pick out anything in the world. They had intensional definition, but that's all.
Do you agree with that?
Some gross oversimplification follows. I'm concerned about getting the overall picture in place rather than the detail.
Go back to John's pets. The extension of "John's pets" is {Algol, BASIC}. It is exactly the set of things, taken as a whole. The extension of "John's pets" = {Algol, BASIC} is the same as saying the extension is "that very thing" - the extension is those specific dogs.
The intension is much less specific. The intension of 'John's dogs" is it's meaning or sense, whatever that is, or the concept of a dog owned by John.
Its much easier to work with extension. Intensionaly speaking, to check if "Algol is one of Joh's dogs" is true might require us to check the sense of "John's dogs", what that concept means or how it is used, then to do the same with "algol", and bring the two together.
Extensionally speaking, to check if "Algol is one of Joh's dogs" is true we look to see if "Algol" is in {algol, BASIC}.
the important bit is to notice that in the intensional way of checking, the truth of the sentence depends on concepts and meaning and such. But in the extensional approach, what's involved is a relative y simple process of checking if the referent of the term is an element of the extension of the predicate.
There are formal definitions of intension, used in formalising intensional logic. These pretty much consist in relations between terms and their extensions. But this is not central to the article we are considering.
Quoting frank
Not quite. It's not that "possibly, Algol might not have been one of John's dogs" does not refer to anything - it clearly does. It's that substitution, the very core of extensionality, might not preserve the truth of such sentences. In modal contexts, knowing what something ‘actually is’ is not enough to determine truth; you have to consider how it might be in other possible worlds.
Ok. I've got it.
The possible worlds semantics creates the illusion of extensional objects, "worlds" as a referent. This is the same tactic used by mathematical set theory. They use the concept of "mathematical objects" to create the illusion of extensional referents. It's Platonic realism. The problem is that the reality of these "objects" is not well supported ontologically.
The kind of expression we're talking about is:
Necessarily, all John's pets are mammals.
There's no mention of possible worlds in this expression. So no, it's not that we give "worlds" a referent by modal logic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is nonsense because numbers are already abstract objects. We don't need set theory for that. BTW, so are sentences, propositions, words, the whole shebang. We're examining the way we think. A few abstract objects show up. Deal with it. :razz:
A quantifer tells us about the number of items in a domain that have a certain property, like all, or some. So "necessary" will mean that all the items (in every possible world) have the property. Possibly mean at least some of them do.
I don't understand your argument here frank. How, in your mind, does possible worlds semantics establish extensionality for modal logic? Is it not the case that "necessarily" means true in all possible worlds, and that these "worlds", which are supposed to be the referent objects, provide the foundation for extensionality?
Quoting frank
That abstractions such as numbers are "objects" is a specific ontological claim. That ontology is known as Platonism or Platonic realism. Abstractions are not necessarily understood as objects though. They are considered to be objects if the Platonist perspective is accepted. Set theory stipulates that these abstractions are objects, by axiom. These objects provide the foundation for extensionality. In modal logic "possible worlds" provide the objects for extensionality.
Step by step, Meta. Step by step. The aim here is to see what standard modal theory says before critiquing it.
Yep.
Quoting frank
But this is an equivocation between natural language and a specific formal language. When @Metaphysician Undercover spoke about "possible worlds semantics," he surely was not talking about natural language that uses the words that possible worlds semantics attempts to formalize. Yet your construal of his claim is mistakenly committed to the idea that this is precisely what he is doing. Indeed, if @Metaphysician Undercover were incorrect then your post would make no sense, for it is bound up with the fact he pointed to.
Possible worlds semantics reifies "possible worlds" into an (extensional) set, in order to make it conform to extensional presuppositions. But this is confused given that modal terms in natural language are not extensional in that manner. The words "necessarily" and "possibly" do not denote extensional sets. It is this confusion that lies at the bottom of so many of the problems that come up in this area. The modal logician basically says, "Modal terms are not extensional, but we're going to pretend they are." Modal terms are made into a nail by those who have only a hammer, and those who pay attention to this sleight of hand are not surprised by the strange outcomes. The various "puzzles" that inevitably come up in the latter parts of the SEP articles are largely reducible to this pretense.
Extensionality is the very first step. We ought to understand what it means before proceeding. It appeared like my interpretation was not consistent with frank's so I asked frank to clarify what he was saying.
Make up your own definition is counterproductive here.
I'm not interested in your attempt to change the subject.
Heaven forbid we talk about the definition of "extension" in modal logic.
I reject your definition as completely different from the one in the article we are supposed to be reading, which I quoted above. Taking a definition from a different context is not helpful, only a distraction or a deliberate attempt at equivocation.
[quote=SEP]Since the middle ages at least, philosophers have recognized a semantical distinction between extension and intension. The extension of a denoting expression, or term, such as a name or a definite description is its referent, the thing that it refers to; the extension of a predicate is the set of things it applies to; and the extension of a sentence is its truth value. By contrast, the intension of an expression is something rather less definite — its sense, or meaning, the semantical aspect of the expression that determines its extension. For purposes here, let us say that a logic is a formal language together with a semantic theory for the language, that is, a theory that provides rigorous definitions of truth, validity, and logical consequence for the language.[2] A logic is extensional if the truth value of every sentence of the logic is determined entirely by its form and the extensions of its component sentences, predicates, and terms. An extensional logic will thus typically feature a variety of valid substitutivity principles. A substitutivity principle says that, if two expressions are coextensional, that is, if they have the same extension, then (subject perhaps to some reasonable conditions) either can be substituted for the other in any sentence salva veritate, that is, without altering the original sentence's truth value. In an intensional logic, the truth values of some sentences are determined by something over and above their forms and the extensions of their components and, as a consequence, at least one classical substitutivity principle is typically rendered invalid.[/quote]
The next section looks pretty fearsome. Its formality belies a fairly simple and direct way to deal with truth, which was developed by Tarski. It's not his T-sentences, although it comes from the same body of work.
We are already almost there with the following:
In predicate logic, every predicate symbol has an arity, the number of arguments it takes. A proposition, such as p, is 0-ary, it takes zero arguments; a 1-ary predicate such as f(x) takes one argument - the "x"; a 2-ary predicate such as f(x,y) takes two arguments - the "x" and the "y". Generally, an n-ary predicate takes n arguments
What's added is the definition of "...is true" as follows:
These give the meaning of "...is true" for each of the n-ary predicate symbols.
So what is being said is that a proposition, p, will be true in the case that its extension is the truth value TRUE. This might seem odd at first, but it's standard, so take it as it stands for now.
A 1-ary predicate such as f(x) will be true in the case that the referent of x is one of the things that is in the extension of f.
A 2-ary predicate such as f(x,y) will be true in the case that the referent of x and y are among the things in the extension of f.
Going back to John's two dogs, The sentence "John has two dogs" has as its extension "TRUE", and so is a true sentence. The predicate "John's dogs" has the extension {Algol, BASIC}; and "Algol is one of John's dogs" will be true precisely if Algol is in that extension; which it is.
We can add a bit of terminology. We say that "TRUE" satisfies "John has two dogs", and that Algol satisfies "One of John's dogs".
We might add the predicate "Loved by", with the extension {(John, Algol), (John, BASIC)} - "John loves Algol" and "John Loves BASIC" are both true. We get such the 2-ary predicates as "Loved by (John, Algol)" which will be true exactly if (John, Algol) is a member fo the extension of "Loved by" - that (John, Algol) satisfies "Loved by"
What Tarski did here was to provide a way to evaluate the truth of any formula, using satisfaction, and hence purely in terms of extensionality.
We have a language - roughly, first order calculus.We give it the following interpretation...
We have a domain consisting of three things: John, Algol and BASIC (Who names their dogs after extinct computer languages?)
We have a few predicates, "Is John's pet", with the extension {Algol, BASIC}; "Is a dog" with the extension {Algol, BASIC}; "Is loved by" with the extension {(John, Algol), (John, BASIC)}.
We can note immediately that "Is John's pet" is co-extensional with "Is a dog" - all John's pets are dogs.
We then set out satisfaction; An individual satisfies a predicate exactly if it is a member of the extension of that predicate. So Algol satisfies "Is a dog", and the pair (John, Algol) satisfies "Is loved by".
And then we can define being true for any sentence in our interpretation in terms of satisfaction. A proposition is true if the individuals involved satisfy the predicates involved.
This approach might make it easier the follow the next section.
Again, we've defined truth in our language using only extensions.
This does the work in the section of Tarski's semantics, with
The equivalences between my last post and the section on Tarski's semantics.
[math]
[/math]
Yep. The U and the ? quantify within a world, the ? and the ? across worlds.
That's the next step.
How is the domain set?
Domain: D = { John, Algol, BASIC }
But potentially anything.
Can you say what you mean by this?
Do you mean a sentence with these terms cannot have a truth value, or do you mean they fail at substitutivity always?
The trouble with Tarski's system is that there is but one domain, and one interpretation. Kripke's move was to notice that if we consider multiple domains and interpretations, we can use Tarski's approach to analyse modal statements.
It might have been the case that Algol did not become one of John's pets. That would be a change in the interpretation, but not in the domain. The extension of "Is John's pet" would no longer be { Algol, BASIC }, but just { BASIC }.
And in the previous example the domain was { John, Algol, BASIC }. Now it might have been the case that instead John has a pet canary — COBOL (I'm not choosing these names!). The domain would then be { John, Algol, BASIC, COBOL }. Some of the sentences we used would here keep their truth value - that Algol is one of John's pets would remain true. Others would change - that all of John's pets are dogs would no longer be true.
Notice that this latter instance is also a change in the interpretation. The interpretation is a list of which individuals are assigned to which predicates. Adding an individual to the domain changes the interpretation.
That's all a possible world amounts to. A different interpretation of the symbols in a Tarskian system.
In one possible world, the interpretation has the pets as Algol and BASIC. That's the possible world in which it is true that John's pets are Algol and BASIC. In another, the pets are Algol, BASIC and COBOL. In another, Algol is not one of John's pets.
Notice that extensionality survives within, but not between, these worlds.
Here's were we can explain and overcome the accusations from Quine and others that modal logic cannot be treated extensionally.
So with Nixon winning the election, the domain is
{Nixon}
W(x) = won the election
L(x) = lost the election
W(Nixon) is true.
But in the possible world(s) in which he lost the election,
L(Nixon) is true.
Is that right?
An extensional account.
Let:
w? = the actual world
w? = a counterfactual world
Let the 1-ary predicate:
W(x) = "x won the election"
Tarskian semantics inside each world:
[math]\mathrm{Ext}_{w_0}(W) = \{ \mathrm{Nixon} \}[/math]
[math]\mathrm{Ext}_{w_1}(W) = \varnothing[/math]
So:
In w?, Nixon satisfies "won the election":
[math]\mathrm{Nixon} \in \mathrm{Ext}_{w_0}(W)[/math]
In w?, Nixon does NOT satisfy it:
[math]\mathrm{Nixon} \notin \mathrm{Ext}_{w_1}(W)[/math]
This is purely extensional. Kripke's move:
- Extensionality is preserved *within each world* (Tarski)
- Extensions can differ *across worlds*
- So substitution fails across worlds, not because modal logic is intensional,
but because predicate extensions vary from world to world.
This is exactly what necessity and possibility require.
:up: :up: :up:
Quoting Banno
That is contrary to what the SEP article states. Modal logic is intensional. And, it is only the expression of it, the interpretation of separate "possible worlds", which produces extensionality. There is no extensionality between possibilities because possibilities are inherently imaginary. It is only by assigning distinct "worlds", ("domains" or whatever you wish to call them), each with its own rules of extensionality, that the illusion of extensionality is artificially created.
However, the rules of extensionality cannot extend from one supposed "world" to another, to provide for the semantic modality of "possible". Therefore only intensionality relates the distinct "worlds" because the fact is that modal logic which relates possibilities is inherently intensional. This intentionality is described by you as "exactly what necessity and possibility require". Notice that the structure is ultimately designed to accommodate the intensional meaning, what necessity and possibility "require", rather than an extensional reality.
Kripke postulates "rigid designators," I think. So if Nixon is the referent of the term "Nixon" in any given possible world, maybe that alone solves extensionality without having to worry about the existence of "possible worlds." What do you think?
Could you quote the passage you're referring to here?
And consequently sentence extensions; that is, truth value, also varies across worlds.
Yep. :up:
---
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting NotAristotle
Modern logic is built on the foundation of set theory (cf. SEP - Emergence of First-Order Logic), and therefore its ability to translate and track natural reasoning depends on how closely the meaning of any given natural reasoning coheres with set theory.
So we begin with something as simple as set inclusion, with things like this:
x ? B (x is an element of the set B)
x ? B (x is a subset of the set B)
A set such as B involves quantitative extension. For example, B might be the set of three things: {x, y, z}.
Quantificational logic builds on this foundation by envisioning everything, at bottom, as a form of set membership. So if we have a natural language statement such as, "There is a green frog," then quantificational logic will try to translate it as follows:
?x(G(x) ? (F(x))
...Which, commonly expressed, means, "There exists an x such that x is green and x is a frog." But everything here is based on set theory. A predicate such as G(x) will be true precisely when x is an element in the set defined by the predicate G. Similarly, the quantifiers (? and ?) are also founded on set theory, where the quantifiers are intended to "quantify over" all "things" (or elements of the domain one is speaking to). They are statements about the domain conceived as a set.
Modal logic builds on this foundation by thinking of natural language modal terms ("necessarily" and "possibly") basically as extensional sets (cf. SEP - Modern Origins of Modal Logic). So if we have a natural language statement such as, "It is possible that there is a black frog," then modal logic will try to translate it as follows:
??x(B(x) ? F(x))
The meaning here is similar to the first-order sentence above, except that the possibility operator is included (?). Possibility and necessity operators in modal logic (? and ?) are conceived along the lines of quantifiers, and are built on the same foundation of set theory that quantifiers are built on. So, simplifying a bit, the formal modal logic sentence about the black frog envisions a set which contains all possible things, and it affirms that the "existence" of a black frog belongs to that set of all possible things (i.e. possible "worlds"). So everything is reducible to set theory: the functions (B and F), the existential quantifier (?), and the modal quantifier (?).
Now this is a simplification, for set theory, first-order logic, and modal logic all took a long time to develop, and this time was used to iron out all sorts of wrinkles. But the gist remains true, namely that set theory is the foundation for all of these forms of modern logic. In a sense logicians did this because once set theory was developed, if one could make other forms of discourse conform to set theory then the developed power of set theory could be applied to boolean logic, or predicates, or modal notions, etc. It's a bit like an engineer who engineers an engine for a train, and then tries to simply modify that engine for all other purposes rather than creating a new kind of engine for other things. It is also closely related to the desire to extend the precision of mathematics to all human reasoning (which is an old error that Aristotle points out explicitly in his Metaphysics). But let's come back to your question.
When someone says, "It is possible that there is a black frog," they are actually not saying the equivalent of ??x(B(x) ? F(x)). When we talk about what is possible, we are not talking about a set, namely the set of all possible things. And when we talk about what is necessary, we are not talking about a set, namely the set of all necessary things. In natural language there are a million different shades of possibility and necessity, and the binary logic of set theory simply cannot capture the semantic nuance involved. Pigeonholing modal language into set theory can result in half-truths and partial representations, but to pretend it is semantically equivalent is a serious error. Now good logicians actually know this, but there are lots of bad logicians who either do not know it or else are not consistent in applying it. Those bad logicians have no understanding of the historical situatedness of modern forms of logic, and they will tend to try to interpret someone's claim as ??x(B(x) ? F(x)) and pretend that there is no difference at all, even browbeating the person if they protest that they are not talking about sets, or that the set machine is inadequate to represent their claim.
Menzel is fairly clear about the equivocation that occurs when trying to shoehorn modal language into a quantificational apparatus:
Quoting Menzel, Possible Worlds (SEP)
The point is clear enough, "Modal logic is not extensional, but modern logicians endow it with an extensional semantic theory." Or as I said earlier, modern logicians pretend that modal terms are extensional because they have a pre-made extensional engine, and that engine can't power non-extensional reasoning.
The historical background for all of modern logic is late Medieval nominalism (cf. SEP - The Medieval Problem of Universals, by Gyula Klima). Basing logic on set theory is a quintessentially nominalistic move, and was already being anticipated by figures like Peter Abelard in the 12th century. Yet the Medievals always understood something that Moderns consistently fail to understand, namely that repurposing a formalization engine for logic has intrinsic limitations and problems (link). The reason the modern does not see this is because the modern period has to do with control over nature, following Francis Bacon, and a set-theoretic engine aligns well with that telos.
(Edit: As alludes to, embedded sub-forms of extensionality were introduced into modal logic as it evolved, primarily by Saul Kripke. There are questions about whether sub-extensionalities indexed to possible worlds are adequate to represent modal language, but there is also the fact that the super-structure and paradigm is all extensional. Given that extensionality is the water that the fish of the modern logician swims in, it is no coincidence that "possible worlds" are inherently conceived along the lines of quantitative, set-theoretic entities.)
That doesn't really make sense. Since the properties of the thing named "Nixon" in this case, are different in the different possible worlds, we cannot say that there is a single referent, the subject is different in each different world. The "Nixon" in one world would not be the same person as the "Nixon" in another. There could be some semantic rules about the use of the name, making it a "rigid designator", but that does not constitute a referent.
Quoting frank
I have already, here:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Quoting Menzel, 1.1
Your quote of Menzel follows directly on this premise.
Note:
Quoting Menzel
For Menzel the whole issue has to do with attempting to turn something that is prima facie intensional into something that is extensional. This is also one of the basic lines of demarcation between "concretism" and "abstractionism." He presents possible world semantics as an attempt to "extensionalize" modal logic, or as an attempt to argue that the intensionality of modal logic is only apparent.
The same thing cannot have different properties at different times?
So we have multiple domains and interpretations. That gives us extension within worlds, but not across worlds.
What do you think is going on in that section?
No, Meta. Let's go through it step by step.
1. What “extensional” means here A logic is extensional when:
To know whether a sentence is true, you only need to know the extensions (the things the predicates apply to).
Example in ordinary Tarskian semantics:
“...is John’s pet” has the extension {Algol, BASIC}.
So “Algol is John’s pet” is true just because Algol ? that set. Nothing else matters. That’s extensionality.
2. Why modal logic is intensionalModal logic contains operators like ? “necessarily” and ? “possibly.”
Now the truth of “??” does not depend only on what is true in the actual world. It depends on what happens in other worlds (other interpretations).
That is why modal logic is intensional.
We need more information than just the extension in the actual world.
This is exactly what the SEP says.
3. Kripke’s move: extensionality inside each world
Here is the key point Meta missed:
Even though modal logic is intensional globally, each individual world is fully extensional in the plain Tarskian sense.
Inside any world w
Example:
In world w?: Ext(“John’s pet”) = {Algol, BASIC}, so at w?: “Algol is John’s pet” is true extensionally.
In world w?: Ext(“John’s pet”) = {BASIC} so at w?: “Algol is John’s pet” is false extensionally.
But in both cases the evaluation rule is exactly the same.
This is why Frank is correct.
4. Why substitution fails across worlds
Meta insists that failure of substitution “proves” intensionality between worlds. But that is exactly the point of possible-world semantics:
Each world has its own extensions. Therefore substituting co-referential terms across worlds need not preserve truth.
That is not a problem — it is the definition of intensionality.
There is no “illusion” here.
Just different Tarskian interpretations, one per world.
So, while modal contexts are intensional overall, because the truth of ?? and ?? depends on more than what happens in the actual world, each possible world is internally extensional in the plain Tarskian way: a fixed domain and fixed extensions for predicates. The intensionality appears only when you compare worlds, because extensions can vary from one world to another.
Again, what must you make of the heading "1.2 Extensionality Regained"?
Yes.
However, I think "all John's pets" in the statement "necessarily all John's pets are mammals" means all John's possible pets. Thus the semantic interpretation of the modal claim. Extensionality regained = all John's possible pets are the referents of the expression "John's pets" in the statement "Necessarily all John's pets are mammals."
Yep. Modal logic uses the extensional definition of truth as satisfaction within a world. Strictly, it is the interpretation that varies form world to world, as that includes the different individuals. So if we compare w?, in which we have {Algol, BASIC}, and with w? in which we have {Algol, BASIC, COBOL}, the difference in the domain shows itself in a difference in the interpretation of the predicate.
As we go on and fill the logic out we will find things that remain true across possible worlds.
Can I ask, how are you going with the jargon and use of letters in what I've had to say? Too much?
Exactly right.
SO the logic restores extensionality in deciding truth.
We're talking about at the same time, in different possible worlds. If you start trying to describe the difference between one possible world and another as a difference in time (i.e. same object at a different time), you'll open a real can of worms.
Quoting frank
Yes, but even the extension within worlds is artificial, because the worlds (possibilities) are imaginary.
Quoting Banno
Right, now you're on board with the SEP definition. Notice "the things" which the predicates apply to. Traditionally these would be objects with an identity by the law of identity.
Quoting Banno
If there is a thing called Algol, and it is John's pet, then it fulfils that extension. In the case of possible worlds, Algol can be an imaginary thing, a thing which does not have an identity by the law of identity. then the supposed "thing" is not even a thing. I suggest to you that this is a very significant matter.
Quoting Banno
No it is not exactly what the SEP says about intension. It says that while extension establishes relations with things, intension provides the semantics which determines the extension. Please look again:
[quote=SEP]By contrast, the intension of an expression is something rather less definite — its sense, or meaning, the semantical aspect of the expression that determines its extension. For purposes here, let us say that a logic is a formal language together with a semantic theory for the language, that is, a theory that provides rigorous definitions of truth, validity, and logical consequence for the language.
...
In an intensional logic, the truth values of some sentences are determined by something over and above their forms and the extensions of their components and, as a consequence, at least one classical substitutivity principle is typically rendered invalid.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
Like I explain above, the extensionality inside any world is fixed by intensionality. This is because a possible world may contain fictional, imaginary things. Therefore the extensionality is not fixed through reference to real things, it is fixed by semantics.
Quoting Banno
Please don't misquote me. I have said nothing about substitution. You keep insisting that extensionality is about, or defined by substitution. In reality substitution is a logical consequence, relying also of intension.
Quoting Banno
Really? This is the definition of intension? You really need to pay closer attention to the reading instead of just assuming your preconceptions.
Quoting Banno
As I explained, the extensionality regained is an artificial extensionality, produced intensionallly, rather than through reference to real physical things with an identity. That is required, because we need to allow that a possible world has imaginary, fictional things. Since we cannot rely on true extensions ("things the predicates apply to") in the imaginary world, the referents are really a semantical (intensional) recreation of extensionality.
A few things. While it's true that historically, set theory proceeds first order logic stands independently of set theory, it would be more accurate to say that logically, set theory uses first-order language. Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory (ZF/ZFC), for example, is formulated in a first-order language with the single primitive symbol ?, and uses first-order logic to express its axioms. Hence it depends on FOL for its syntax and proof system.
Hence
Quoting Leontiskos
is an bit of an over-reach. Even if a logic's semantics uses sets the meaning of natural language does not thereby become extensional. Indeed, we ought keep the intentional aspect of natural languages not found in extensional logics.
Modal logic is not built on set theory, and as we've been reading, it does not treat possibility and necessity as extensional sets. Possible-world semantics interprets ? and ? using relations between worlds, not by forming extensional sets whose members are propositions. But that's jumping ahead in the article.
Logicians understand that formal languages approximate modalities, but do not claim semantic equivalence with natural language.
Quoting Leontiskos
Not quite. Menzel states that the semantics is extensional, meaning it is a Tarskian model-theoretic semantics. This does not mean that modal operators are extensional, nor that modal language is reducible to sets, nor that modal reasoning becomes extensional. It simply means the model theory uses standard tools (sets, functions, relations). Logicians are not pretending that modal terms are extensional.
We might do well to keep in mind that what Menzel is presenting is standard, accepted logic and has been so for many years.
Of course it can. Indeed, there are temporal logics that build on the framework of possible world semantics. See the semantics of the system TL
Yep.
This is what you said. But you presumably also agree that the same thing can have different properties over time. If the same thing can have different properties over time, then the same thing can have different properties and still be the same thing. Therefore, different possible attributes of Nixon can refer to the very same Nixon, as would be the case whether Nixon was actually fat or actually skinny.
EDIT: Or put another way, the fact that different possible Nixons have different properties does not render them different Nixons.
The claim that individuals in possible worlds might lose identity is false in standard semantics. The formal system already handles non-existence cleanly by having the individual absent from a predicate’s extension. That is, if it does not exist in w, then it is not int he domain of w.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Modal logic is intensional: truth cannot be determined by reference in the actual world alone. But Tarski-style extensional semantics can be applied within each world. The intension of a term or predicate is a function from worlds to extensions, and this intension determines the extension in each world. Extensions still define truth inside a world, while intensions describe how extensions vary across worlds. Modal operators (?, ?) are intensional because they quantify over extensions in multiple worlds. This is the account given in the SEP article.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In Kripke-style possible-world semantics, each world w has a domain of individuals, D(w),and extensions of each predicate: [math]\text{Ext}_w(P)[/math] Within that world, extensional truth is evaluated directly, exactly like Tarski semantics: [math]P(a) \text{ is true at } w \iff a \in \text{Ext}_w(P)[/math]
Nothing "semantic" or "intensional" is needed inside the world. The evaluation is purely extensional.
So I'm afraid you are incorrect here, too.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well, no. In formal Kripke semantics, extensionality inside a world is real and exact. Nothing “artificial” or “intentionally produced” is involved inside the world. Possible-world semantics does not care whether the individuals are “real” or “fictional", since the extension of a predicate in a world is always a well-defined set of individuals in that world. Intensions tell us how the extension changes across worlds, but inside each world, extensionality is fully Tarskian, such that the truth of a sentence depends only on the domain and the extension in that world. Intension is a tool for cross-world reasoning, not a replacement for extensional truth inside a world.
John asked if Frosty the Snowman is a Christmas themed character.
The extension of "is a Christmas-themed character" is
{Santa Claus, Mrs. Claus, Reindeer (especially Rudolph), Snowmen (like Frosty), Elves, Belsnickel & Befana, The Grinch, Jack Skellington, Ebenezer Scrooge}
C(x) = "Is a Christmas-themed character."
C(Frosty the Snowman) is true.
It doesn't matter that Frosty the Snowman isn't real.
I was poring over your example trying to get that right.
The difference is the same in each case.Consider negation. in Tarski:
...where "I" is the interpretation.
And for negation in possible worlds:
...were w is some world and M is a possible world interpretation.
The "true-in-M at w if and only if" makes explicit that each is true at a world.
It's perhaps worth pointing out that while the list includes only atomic sentences, negation, material conditional and universal quantification, the whole of first-order logic can be defined therefrom.
And to this we can now add
Which is just that a proposition is necessarily true exactly when it is true in all possible worlds. ? is then defined as ~?~, in the same relative way as ?(x) and U(x).
Neat stuff.
In syntax, modal operators (?, ?) block substitution and fail to behave like extensional connectives. But semantically, if we treat each world as a Tarskian interpretation, then modal truth conditions are entirely extensional within each world. Intensionality arises from the syntax, not from some deep semantic mystery.
Sure, but as I said, with possible worlds we are talking about different properties at the same time. That is what prevents the name from referring to the same thing.
Quoting Banno
The truth or falsity of this statement depends on how one would define "identity". By the law of identity, identity is a relation between a thing and itself, stating that the thing is the same as itself. Mathematics, specifically set theory, has produced a distinct form of identity, which is based in the concept of equality, rather than the empirical observations of "a thing".
Standard possible worlds semantics appears to borrow this form of "identity", from mathematics, allowing that individuals in possible worlds have the same identity through an equality relation. This form of "identity" is in violation of the law of identity. And if the equivalent individuals, in distinct possible worlds, have contradictory properties, at what is said to be the same time, and are also said to be the same individual (have the same identity), this would violate the law of non-contradiction. Therefore it is best for proper understanding, to recognize this violation of the law of identity, and that the individuals within distinct worlds who bear the same name, have an equality relation rather than an identity relation, so that the law of non-contradiction is not violated.
Quoting Banno
The way I see it, and as described by the SEP, any logic has intensional and extensional aspects. There are very good reasons why logic could not exist as just one of these.
Quoting Banno
You are not paying close attention to what the SEP is saying:
[quote=SEP]By contrast, the intension of an expression is something rather less definite — its sense, or meaning, the semantical aspect of the expression that determines its extension. For purposes here, let us say that a logic is a formal language together with a semantic theory for the language, that is, a theory that provides rigorous definitions of truth, validity, and logical consequence for the language.[/quote]
Rules of extension are intensional. So the rules of Tarskian semantics which you stated, are intensional, and they apply specifically "inside the world".
But it's not the case that extentionality produces good logic, and intensionality produces bad logic, or anything like that, as they are both necessary aspects of logic. The way I see it is that intensionality provides the creative aspect required for what the SEP calls "rigorous definitions of truth", while extensionality provides the demonstrative aspect, to show, or prove to others, the usefulness of those intensional definitions. If you are interested in reading further, my perspective on this, check my reply to frank below.
Quoting Banno
I don't think you are understanding what I meant. Being a "possible world", the entire world is intentionally produced, and it is imaginary in the sense that it is a description which does not necessarily describe anything "real", as in independent, in the physical world. This is why the semantics are such that it doesn't matter if things are real or fictional, because everything is treated as fictional. That's the same as pure mathematics, the axioms are assumed to be fictionalbecause this provides for the required freedom.
So the extensions within a world are produced intensionally, through a set of rules, Tarskian in this case. They are not "real" extensions in the sense of being demonstrated or proven through reference to "real" empirical objects in the physical world, they are proven through reference to the rules, which you say in Kripke semantics are "real and exact".
Quoting frank
I think you are missing out on the foundation, or basic point of "extension". Notice, all your examples of "Christmas-themed characters" are intensional concepts. Not one is a physical "thing" which you can point to, and say that is an example of a Christmas-themed character. Even "snowmen" is a concept, and you would need to point to individual snowmen, as an extensional demonstration of what a snowman is.
Let's take an example, the concept "red", and I'll try to draw this out threw some historical references.
Suppose we say that the meaning of the concept "red" is demonstrated by all the things in the world that are red, that is the extension. So we might be inclined to define "red" that way. If it's the colour of any of these things, then its red. There would be a problem with this definition because it self-referential, and lacks objectivity. And, even if we have agreement from the majority of people which things are red, the things referred to as "red" could shift over time, and we could be adding gold things, orange things, whatever. So conventional agreement on extensionality does not suffice for objectivity. And extension is therefore not a good base or foundation for logic.
Pythagoras got around this problem with the theory of participation, which we now know as Platonism. Every red thing is correctly called "red", or "is red", because it partakes in the Idea of red. Notice that this inverts the situation, giving priority to intension, meaning, rather than empirical observations. From this perspective it is not the case that the idea of "red" is derived from the extension (seeing, and calling things red), but the idea of what it means to be red is prior to there being red things, and we call things "red" because they fulfil the criteria of this intension.
Giving priority to the semantic idea, intension, opens the door to the very productive ideas of the empty set, zero, and possibility in general. Notice that if "red" is defined extensionally, through reference to red things, there cannot be a "red" if there is no red thing. Giving priority to the idea, intensionality, allows that "red" may be a defined concept, without having any red things. This principle allows for "zero", and "possibility" in general. We can say that we have found zero red things, while maintaining the possibility that we may find some red things.
So logic is fundamentally intensional. Logicians produce axioms, definitions and rules for logical proceedings, and these are intensional. However, philosophers are by nature skeptical, and they will doubt these logical principles, requesting demonstrations. This forces the logicians to produce extensions to demonstrate the usefulness of the principles. The philosopher says to the logician, you have an idea of red, and an empty set of red things, prove to me that this is a valid idea. So the logician must formulate extensions, ways in which "red" is useful. Aristotle for example, was very strict in his demands, insisting that the extensions must ultimately refer to substance.
The basic point of extensionality is substitutivity. Extension and intension are ways to define an expression.
What were you thinking it was?
I do not really have any reason to argue against what you have said. However, I do want to phone-in on this assertion:
Quoting Leontiskos
I am unsure whether a possible world semantics interpretation of modal logic can still be extensional if it refers to, not only currently existing things, but in addition, "possible things."
To Metaphysician Undercover's point, we might wonder whether a "black frog" refers to anything if its existence is limited to something like possible worlds. And yet, if we consider all the existing frogs, that is what I take us to be referring to if we were to list all the things that fit into the domain for the predication "black frog." It is the property "black" that is "possible" not the referent, which is all extant frogs, now existing, and all of which could be black. On the other hand, perhaps imaginary things like "Frosty the Snowman" can be referents too; but of that I am less certain. In terms of just intension, it is clear that "Frosty the Snowman is a holiday character, but I am less certain whether Frosty is extensional in the sense of having a referent. All that said, I think possible world semantics definitely works extensionally, at least when the referents are well-defined in the actual world.
We are talking about possible "properties" of a thing, the referent, in this case "Nixon." Insofar as those properties are merely "possible" I don't see why they can't be attributed to Nixon, even at the same time, as Nixon's actual properties.
That's fine.
Quoting frank
I think now is a good time to hear your critiques whenever you are ready Richard B.
Sure thing. :up:
Quoting NotAristotle
Right, and the second article of the OP is related to this problem. There are two other places which are good references for this question:
Quoting NotAristotle
The objection you raise is a good one. The objection I raised supposes that possible world semantics is a bona fide extensional logic, but then questions whether set theory adequately translates natural language speech about possibility and necessity. A simple way to see this is to consider the decision procedure for each. When someone inquires about the possibility of a black frog, they are not getting out their set of all possible things and thumbing through it to see if there are any black frogs in the set. This is but one example of the way the objection comes to bear, and if logic is supposed to reflect real thinking, then lazy logical approximations will be a problem to one extent or another. If you asked a (concretist) modal logician whether they are employing their logic because they think it is true, accurate, or reflective of good reasoning, they would reply, "No, I use it because of convenience: because the set-theoretic engine was pre-made. It doesn't entirely fit modal reasoning, but it's fit to purpose." At that point we always need to ask, "To which purposes is it fit, and to which purposes is it not fit?" This is the question that unreflective logicians hate, as well as nominalists in general.
That's not what the SEP article says, and I've provided quotes. I suggest you reread the part on extensionality.
Quoting NotAristotle
Well, when it is a possibility, we cannot say that the predication is made. And we cannot attribute a property as a possibility, that would defy the law of excluded middle. And if we simply attribute "possibility", this would be infinite. So we need principles to limit the possibility which will be attributed in a logical way.
Why not?
You don't appear to be available for learning at the moment.
Breviceps fuscus, or Black Rain Frog.
Have you noticed that we do not seem to have many African members on the forum?
How does this prevent reference? The reasoning is unclear here. We can consider what the world might have been like if Nixon were unelected, and that is a speculation about Nixon, and not someone else. The name does refer in such counterfactual cases.
Two things seem to be missing here. The first is an account of why talking about different properties at the same time prevents reference, and the second is how it is that sentences like "Nixon might not have won the 1972 election" are not about Nixon...
:meh:
Anyway, sorry to sidetrack the thread. I would join in but I fear I am too obtuse, or of the wrong mindset, to properly understand possible world semantics.
If you like. The definition is pretty straight forward. We us "=" for identity, and
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yep. a=a if and only if, for every formula in which we user a, we can substitute... a.
Looks good. Not all that profound. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No it doesn't. The Law of Identify is just U(x)(x=x). Substituting any individual for x here results in a valid form: a=a, b=b, and so on.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No. Identity is evaluated within a single world. Saying “x in world w? has property P, and x in world w? has property ¬P” does not create a contradiction. These are two distinct instances of the term in different worlds.
Your account amounts to us not being able to ask "what if Nixon lost the election?"
This has all been explained to you before.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, Meta. You yet again have refused to try to understand modal logic in it's own terms.
SO this:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
...is a dreadful muddle. Tarski's semantics is purely extensional.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No. @frank has it right. It's you who missed the foundation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
So here's the extensional definition of "...is red"
It simply lists all things in the domain D that are red. It is not self-referential. On the left, we have "red",a and on the right, the set of red things. It is objective, because anyone can check to see if the individual a is an element in the extension given, independently of their opinion. The contents of the extension might well change over time, or between possible worlds - that's exactly the point of possible world semantics.
The decision to count something as red is external to the logic here. Your attempted criticism does not land.
Quoting frank
Yep.
There is a case that Meta could make here, but his repeated refusal to treat formal logic on its own terms renders each of his arguments inconsequential. The case he might make is met and advanced by relevance logics and such, but since Meta refuses to understand the basics of FOPL he cannot make use of these much more powerful and interesting tools.
The “case” he could make requires mastery of the formal system first, which Meta refuses to do.
Didn't you just refer to Frosty? We can refer to Superman or Sherlock Holmes. Set the domain to Middle Earth, and we can make inferences such as "Frodo was a Hobbit, therefore something was a hobbit"; or ask counterfactual question such as "What might have happened had Frodo not destroyed the One Ring"?
Why would we want to restrict our logic to only empirical stuff? A logic that can deal with anything we might care to discuss is preferable.
And again, modal logic does not treat of a set of all possible things. Thats quite a misrepresentation.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Of corse we can. "Nixon was not elected president" attributes a predicate to Nixon - in sme other possible world.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Now you have moved on to excluded middle. In the same way as identity is evaluated within a single world, so is excluded middle. It remains valid.
Because that's what a predication is, to state that a subject has a specified property. Predication is not to say that it might have the property.
Quoting Banno
If, at time t, in one possible world Nixon is president, and at t in another possible world Nixon is not president, then what "Nixon" refers to, is not the same thing, by the law of identity, without contradiction. In other words, it is contradictory to say that the same individual is president, and is not president, at the same time.
To avoid this, we must accept that the two individuals referred to by "Nixon" in the two separate worlds, are not the same thing. What I proposed in the prior post, is that we consider this to be a relation of equality rather than identity. This is how it is stipulated in the axiom of extensionality in mathematics, as a statement of equality. However, most mathematicians tend to interpret this as identity, not recognizing the difference between equality and identity, producing a form of "identity" which is contrary to the law of identity.
Quoting Banno
The above answers the first. Saying that the same individual has contrary properties at the same time is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. To answer the second, it is a well known fact that Nixon won that election. To say that Nixon might not have won this election is to doubt that fact. There is nothing inherently wrong with that sort of skepticism. But to say "Nixon won that election, and Nixon might not have won that election" is to contradict oneself. The latter part of the statement allows that Nixon might not have won, while the former stipulates that Nixon won, therefore contradiction is implied.
So to deal with such counterfactuals you may put them into separate possible worlds, and establish an equality relation between the two imaginary things named "Nixon". We are not talking about an actual physical individual in the physical world, named "Nixon", we are talking about two imaginary ideas, in two possible worlds, each named "Nixon" with a relation of equality between them.
This is the difference between the "metaphysical world", and the "modal world" which we hammered out in the other thread. In the metaphysical world we are talking about an individual named "Nixon". In the modal world, we are not talking about a thing named Nixon, we are talking about some sort of model.
Quoting Banno
OK, so as I say, it's a clear violation of the law of identity.
Quoting Banno
Please do some simple research. The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself.
Quoting Banno
That's false. My account validates the statements "it is true that Nixon won the election", and "it is false that Nixon did not win the election. In your imagination, you can ask "what if Nixon lost the election" all you want. I have nothing against creating imaginary scenarios.
Quoting Banno
Sorry, you do not have the set of red things on the right, you have "...". It is self-referential because every red thing must be on the list, meaning that nothing else could be red. What does "red" mean? It means that it's one of the things on the list. The list says "I am what red is, and nothing else is red". It is self referential.
In the rest of this, you confuse intension and extension, like when you say the extension might change between possible world. You incorrectly call it "the extension". Each world has its own extension.
Quoting Banno
Yes, that's the point I was making, it requires a separate world.
Quoting Banno
I've moved on to exclude muddle. I haven't a clue what you're trying to say here.
You muddled your scope. De dicto and de re.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Twaddle. Both sentences are about Nixon. The same Nixon in two different worlds, each of which is evaluated extensionally without contradiction. The basic modal view that you have not understood.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Not if they are in different possible worlds. The whole apparatus has been set out before you, but you refuse to partake.
Quoting Metaphysician UndercoverQuoting Metaphysician Undercover
Are you suggesting that a definition of red things that includes all red things is circular? You want a definition that leaves some of them out?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yep.
Maybe the idea of compossibility is relevant to this discussion. Wikipedia describes compossibility as follows:
"According to Leibniz, a complete individual thing (for example a person) is characterized by all its properties, and these determine its relations with other individuals. The existence of one individual may negate the possibility of the existence of another. A possible world is made up of individuals that are compossible—that is, individuals that can exist together."
So it seems the existence of Nixon with a different possible set of properties would be not compossible with the same Nixon with other actual properties in a given possible world; they could not both exist therein. But one of them can exist therein.
Notice that "both" Nixons would be different "individuals" by Leibniz's definition even though each refers to the same person as that person is rigidly defined.
Again, I think the key is that Nixon's other properties are just possible properties and that being the case, there is no contradiction with them being alongside his actual properties. The fact that Metaphysician Undercover talks about them as if they were other actual properties introduces a problem that is not really there.
Interesting.
There's a difference between characterising a thing and referring to it. There was a lively discussion about this in the middle of the last century...
Some philosophers had supposed that there were no individuals, only collections of properties. A name, they supposed, referred only in virtue of those properties - it was called "the description theory of reference". A few good arguments put paid to the - it's now very much a minority opinion.
Quoting Banno
Will we say that Thales was a Cooper? I think that a better account than calling some other bloke "Thales" just because he went into doing philosophy.
Quoting NotAristotle
Yep.
Quoting NotAristotle
Yep. I've pointed out elsewhere that Meta confuses metaphysics and logic in this way.
Yes, I think I'm more in the mood for calling out bullshit than for learning.
Quoting Banno
It appears I went through weeks of discussion with you in the other thread, where we hammered out the difference between referencing the metaphysical world, and referencing the modal world, to no avail. Do you have an extremely short memory? Please remember the distinction we made between what "Nixon" refers to in the real, independent metaphysical world, and what "Nixon" refers to in the modal model. Or were you just pretending to understand in that other thread?
Quoting Banno
No, I want an intensional definition, because a purely extensional definition is a free-floating self-referential definition.
Quoting NotAristotle
Yes, I think you could say that, that they must be different individuals, but I prefer to think that they are not even individuals at all. They are just conceptual structures, ideas, descriptions without any real thing being described. This is the issue of Platonism. Is an abstraction an object, or is it something else. In the possible worlds context, we can ask whether the ideas which the symbols refer to are properly called individuals or not. What is referenced is ideas, not physical things or individuals.
Quoting NotAristotle
I don't see what you are saying. Having possible properties along side actual properties is a problem. That's why in modalism they must all be modeled as possible. As Banno argued in the other thread, we can stipulate that some properties are actual and give them special status in this way, by stipulation, but that does not mean that we are talking about a real independent individual named "Nixon". It is all still modal, conceptual, and we must maintain the separation between having the words reference ideas, and having words that reference physical individuals.
The one were you repeatedly conflated metaphysics and semantics? I remember it well. You are making the same mistake here. We can plainly talk about what the world would be like were Nixon not re-elected, without thereby committing ourselves to supposing that he had indeed in the actual world not been re-elected.
It's such a simple point. You astonish me.
Obviously, and I agreed.
Quoting Banno
You have a very strange form of straw manning, in which you project your own errors on to someone else. You equivocate, and blame the interpreter for not being able to distinguish the different meanings you give to the same word. Interesting psychology.
As says, not according to the SEP article that is being discussed. Indeed the article literally implies that extensional logic need not have substitutivity principles at all (my bolding):
@Metaphysician Undercover's complaint that little attention is being paid to the SEP article is understandable.
Do I?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
These are both Nixon. The Nixon who did not get elected is not a different Nixon to the one who was. They are the very same fellow, but under different circumstances.
When asks what things might be like were Nixon not elected, he is not asking about some other fellow. Not one, who happens to be actual, and another, who is imagined.
That, so far as I can make out, is your mistake.
Uh-hu, tell me another one bro. Can you tell me how I can get myself into some of these different circumstances? I want the one where I'm the same fellow who won the lottery.
Is it difficult for you to understand that we're not talking about a fellow at all, we're talking about a complex concept?
As I explained previously, in the SEP article, extension has a narrowly defined, technical meaning:
Importantly, this definition makes no reference to substitution.
In logic, extensionality is standardly understood syntactically:
If two expressions have the same extension, then one may be substituted for the other in any sentence without changing its truth value.
This yields:
This is the working notion of extensionality in FOL and classical semantics and in the working within the article.
These two ways of understanding extensionality are not at odds.
What we can do is note this warning and proceed with the article. Is that ok with you?
Odd. Who is "...the one where I'm the same fellow who won the lottery" about, if not you??
Basic grammar.
Yep. Will do.
1. The ideas of necessity and possibility intuitively conjure possible worlds.
2. The obstacle to addressing modality in predicate logic was that there was no recognized path to extensionality. In other words, Tarskian semantics could handle:
BASIC is one of John's pets.
but not:
BASIC is necessarily one of John's pets.
By defining necessity as f(x) being true in all possible worlds, we have extensionality within possible worlds, but not across them. In this case, necessity is a quantifier. It's telling us how many.
So that gives us a brief history. This is the SEP's summary:
Fascinating stuff. @Banno Do you agree and do you have anything to add?
It's hard to grasp the counterarguments here, but perhaps they do think in terms of "an irreducibly intensional element in the meanings of the modal operators". But that wrinkle has been smoothed over by a bit of brilliance form Kripke and others.
The supplement adds a bit of detail. It also gives a neat sumamtion fo the structure here:
It's a bit of a triumph.
To be sure, possible world semantics doesn’t make the modal object language extensional (modal substitutivity still fails), but the semantic theory that defines the truth conditions of the modal language is extensional because it is written in a fully extensional first?order logic.
And this stuff is not easy, so if you have followed so far, give yourself some credit.
It's pretty cool. I think it does capture some of what's going on when we talk about possibility For instance, I want to be able to say that if Nixon lost, x and y would be true. That would part is a modal auxiliary verb (modifying be). Not all languages have a separate word that serve that function. For them modality can be conveyed by borrowing from other linguistic functions like capability and desire. Also in English, there's a close connection between would and should. English modal auxiliary verbs
I can understand objections related to ontology, but it's better to get the basics straight before moving onto that.
Yep. English and Germanic language might lend themselves to these formalisations, perhaps, which is not a surprise since the formalities were mostly done by German and English speakers. Not sure if this is structural or cultural.
And in a similar way to English, there are variants of modal logic that apply possible world semantics quite broadly - deontic and temporal logics for a start, and indexicals.
The next section is quite interesting. It gives the formal definition of intension.
:up:
OK, so here's the warning from the SEP
And as I explained, extensional definitions have the fundamental problem of being self-referential.
Jesus Banno! Did you not take English in school? The subject of that phrase is "the one", and this refers to the "circumstances". The phrase is about that set of circumstances, not about me.
See what I mean about your unusual straw man habits? You take your own error (faulty grammar in this case), and project it onto the other person in a false representation, as if it is the other person's error.
@Banno
I was wondering if you could give an example of what they're talking about here?:
At this point, if I were to try to summarize your view back to you, I wouldn't know what to say. I have no idea what you're trying to express.
Possible world semantics, while used for denoting possibilia, (i.e. state relative actualia via an overspill expansion of the domain of the quantifiers), has no notion of dynamics or interaction, that is necessary for understanding the language-game of possibility.
As a static set-theoretic model. possible world semantics can describe a game tree, but not the execution path of a given game, or the prior processes of interaction by which a game tree emerges.
Does the following make sense:
In possible world 5 - a chess set = {64 squares, made of stone}
In possible world 6 - a chess set = {64 squares, made of ivory}
But some of these properties may be necessary and some may be contingent.
But chess has to be defined.
Therefore, ? ?x(B(x)), where x is the subject “a chess set”, and where B is the predicate “has 64 squares”
Then, it is necessarily the case that the proposition “a chess set has 64 squares” is true.
Therefore, having 64 squares is necessary.
Therefore, the proposition “a chess set has 64 squares” is true in all possible worlds.
But this definition says nothing about material.
Therefore ??x(B(x))
Then, it is possible that a chess set is made of ivory.
Therefore, being made of ivory is contingent
Therefore, being made of ivory is possibly true in some possible world.
As you say, i) defining necessity as being true in all possible worlds and where ii) necessity is a quantifier (meaning “all”).
But is it not the case that:
1 - We have intentionality across all possible worlds (because necessary meaning is an intension and the necessary meaning is the same across all possible worlds)
2 - We have extensionality within each possible world (because contingent properties are an extension and contingent properties are particular to each possible world).
So "Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
isn't about you, but about the circumstances...
Ok. :meh:
Those are nice ways of explaining it. :up:
Menzel treats of the different senses of "intensional" very clearly, however he has no choice but to use the term in a few different ways.
The first is pretty much as the negation of "extensional". This is pretty direct, as extension is well defined formally; so extensionally, truth of formulas is entirely determined by the extensions of their components and hence when truth sometimes depends on something beyond extension, it is intensional.
The next is the one we are coming to in the text, where intension is a well defined function within possible world semantics.
A third is a distinction between the meaning of a term and its extension, which is much the same as Frege's Sinn vs Bedeutung.
There are other uses, each in a particular area. Differing logics have somewhat differing usages, from Medieval Scholastic Logic through to the variety of modern logics. And there's a subtle use in setting definitions, where {2,3,4}, as those very numbers, is said to be extensional, but "the integers between one and five" is considered intensional, because it is a rule that has to be understood and implemented in order to pick out the extension. This is what is making use of, were the intension is in effect a process or rule. Notice that {2,3,4} and "the integers between one and five" are extensionally equivalent, in that they pick out the very same individuals.
Notice that definitions of "extensional" usually come first, with "intensional" being defined as "not extensional".
The outstanding common feature of these various usages is that in extensional contexts, substitution preserves true, while in intentional contexts, it need not.
Changing the quote doesn't help you, because now the statement is about what the actual I, in the actual physical world of here and now, wants. That's why you left that part of my statement out, in the first place, to make it look like the phrase you quoted was about an imaginary "I".
Your idiocy never ceases to amaze me. Names like "Nixon" and "I" have real physical referents. Obviously though, if we create a fictitious context, and use those same names within that fictitious scenario, we are not referring to those same physical things. Trying to pass that off would be deception, lying, plain and simple.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercoverspoken by you, is about you.
"Nixon might not have one the election" is about Nixon, not some other non-physical...whatever
That you are reduced to insults is unbefitting, and perhaps indicative of desperation on your part.
We used this form previously, twice. First, in discussing Tarski's semantics, were a 0-tuple predication was seen to be a proposition, a 1-tuple predication was seen to be a subset of the domain, and a set of n-tuple members of the domain if more than one. Second, in discussing possible world semantics, it was the extension M?(w) of ? at w: a truth value, if n = 0; a set of individuals, if n = 1; and a set of n-tuples of individuals, if n > 1.
Possible world semantics preserves Tarski’s notion of extension, but lifts it to a function from worlds to extensions.
This function is the intension. Speaking roughly, the intension of ? is the rule that tells you what ?’s truth-value would be in every possible world. If you prefer you can treat this as a term of art, as being quite different to the other intensions mentioned in my previous post. But the issue of whether and to what extent this clearly defined notion of intension is the same as the others is alive in the literature.
So to our example, let's look at the 1-tuple "Algol is a pet", with three worlds, where
w?: Algol is a pet
w?: Algol is not a pet
w?: Algol is a pet
"Algol is a pet" is satisfied in w? and w? but not in w?. The Intension of "Algol is a pet" is "true" in w? and w? but not in w?. The Intension of "Algol is a pet" is then
[math]\displaystyle I_{Pet(Algol)}(w)=\begin{cases} \text{true}, & \text{if } w=w_1,\\ \text{false}, & \text{if } w=w_2,\\ \text{true}, & \text{if } w=w_3. \end{cases}
[/math]
I think that's it. The
just covers the three possibilities. The example is for the second case.
So the intensional entities "propositions", "properties" and "relations" are here given an extensional definition.
Think I'd best post this before it gets any longer.
Edit: changed "dog" to "pet" for clarity and consistency.
We are verging on some interesting recent stuff here. There's an argument from David Chalmers that the sort of account given above is problematic in that it would have "water is H?O" and "water is water" have the same intension. He and others have proposed what they call a 2-dimensional semantics in order to overcome this. It looks like modal logic together with with Kaplan's treatment of indexicals.
Others have proposed hyperintensionality, in which finer levels are found inside possibility and necessity. Belief is an example of a hyperintensional context, in virtue of how it exhibits degrees.
Sure, but "Nixon might not have won the election" is obviously a blatant falsity.
And, if you set up a modal model, possible worlds, within which Nixon might not have won the election then this is "some other non-physical...whatever". It's nothing other than a conceptual structure.
What baffles me is that you and I spent weeks hammering out the fact that there is a real difference, and significant separation, between the "actual world" of the conceptual modal model, and the real independent "actual world". And, when the difference was finally made clear, and agreed upon by both of us, you repeatedly accused me of not respecting that difference. Now, you are firmly in that position of refusing to respect the difference.
How can you repeatedly accuse me of making the error of ignoring this difference, and now you insist that there is no difference? In the other thread you insisted that "actual world" could refer to the metaphysically independent world, and also that "actual world" could refer to a conceptual model modal, and it is a significant error to confuse these two meanings. Now you claim the exact opposite, that there is no such duality of meaning for "Nixon". What's going on?
Given that, you are not even in the game, Met.
I think all of this is correct.
So are intension and interpretation the same thing?
Not really. The interpretation is the link between all the things and predicates at a world, while the intension kinda goes in the other direction, as well as across worlds. So in a world the interpretation tells us which thing "Algol" picks out and that it is a pet - that it is true that Algol is a pet. The intension goes the other way, telling us that "Algol is a pet" is true.
So
The interpretation tells us: "Algol" denotes this particular dog, "is a pet" denotes {Algol, BASIC, ...}
The intension tells us: "Algol is a pet" maps w? to TRUE (and also what it maps w?, w?, ... to)
Continuing the quest for truth.
The SEP article Possible Worlds writes:
1 - Modal logic, by contrast, is intensional.
2 - In an intensional logic, the truth values of some sentences are determined by something over and above their forms and the extensions of their components.
This initially makes sense.
Consider the sentence “swans are white”. The truth value of this sentence cannot be known just from the sentence itself
Consider the extension of “swan”. For example {that swan in Hyde Park, this swan on Ullswater}. Knowing what a “swan” is is impossible from a finite number of examples.
As the article writes, the truth value of the sentence “swans are white” can only be determined by something over and above the form of the sentence “swans are white” and over and above the extension of its component “swan”.
Suppose I observe something X having the properties {waterfowl, flighted, white}.
I obviously cannot know whether being white is internal (necessary) or external (contingent) to X without knowing how X has been defined, and that it has been named "swan".
Suppose a “swan” has been defined as having the properties {waterfowl, flighted, white}. Then I know I am seeing a swan, and being white is an internal, necessary property. Given this definition of “swan”, swans are necessarily white in all possible worlds
However, it is not necessarily the case that the same definition obtains in all possible worlds.
For example:
In possible world 5, “swan” may have been defined as {waterfowl, flighted, white}
In possible world 6, “swan” may have been defined as {waterfowl, flighted, black}
The SEP article suggests that the truth value of the sentence “all swans are white” must be determined over and above its form and over and above its extension.
From the Wikipedia article Modal Logic, ? P is true at a world if P is true at every accessible possible world. In other words, necessarily “swans are white” is true at a world if “swans are white” is true at every accessible possible world.
However, in modal logic, this something over and above cannot be a definition, so what could it be?
How does modal logic determine truth values?
I think the simple answer is that it doesn't. You have to provide that. You build a model with a domain and predicates. You have to know what the things you're filling the domain with are and how the predicates relate. It's like you're building a little world. Truth is defined in a certain way.
So the point is more about rigorously handling an expression like "All swans are white" as opposed to determining if it's true.
Here's a block of text from the SEP :grin:
Quoting Intensional Logic from the SEP
So here's a summary of the progress which you and I have made, in our discussion of modal logic.
We both agree that there is a very clear and significant difference between "the actual world" in a modal model, and "the actual world" as a real, independent metaphysical object. However, you persistently refuse to apply this principle in you interpretation of modal logic. And, when I insist on applying this principle in our interpretation of modal logic, you reject me as erroneous, and refuse to include me in your "game".
Quoting RussellA
That is the problem of extensional definition which I pointed to, calling it "self-referential". Banno called it "circular", but refused to acknowledge it as a problem. If the definition is purely extensional, then what makes something what it is, is being categorized as such. What makes a swan a swan is being in the set of swans. You can see the problem of having no intensional criteria. There is nothing to state what it means to be a swan, which justifies classifying something that way. Extensional understanding produces meaningless statements like "it's true that the cat is on the mat if the cat is on the mat". You can see that there is no principle by which we might judge the truth of a proposition.
The something "over and above" referred to by the SEP is much more nuanced than a definition. Truth is determined by the modal operators, necessity, etc.. The application may be based in intuition, empirical principles, or pragmatic reasons, but as indicates it's fundamentally arbitrary.
I am sure that truth in possible world semantics is not down to personal preference, though I am definitely no expert in modal logic.
From SEP Possible Worlds
In my words, the article is saying that in traditional modal logic there was no rigorous account of what it meant for a sentence to be true. This led to a deep scepticism. However, this void of what it means for a sentence in modal logic to be true was filled by possible world semantics.
IE, possible world semantics do somehow give a rigorous account of what it means for a sentence in modal language to be true.
In other words, in modal logic, truth is not a personal thing, in that I think that it is true that "swans are white” whilst you may think that it is true that “swans are black”.
The section you posted from the SEP mentions the concept “true”, but does not specify “true for whom”.
But what is the foundation for truth in modal logic?
Yes, a definition of "true" is provided.
Quoting RussellA
I didn't say it was a personal thing. I said the matching of members of the domain and predicates is part of the model or interpretation.
Quoting RussellA
Foundation?
Quoting frank
In my model, “swan” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}
In John’s model, “swan” = {waterfowl, flighted, black}
I agree that the matching of members of the domain and predicates is part of the model or interpretation.
But what judges whether white or black is part of the domain of a “swan”?
If any judgement is not a personal thing, what is the source of any impersonal judgement?
Quoting RussellA
I'll ask @Banno to weigh in on that because I thought I already answered it. :smile:
What do you mean by "logically true"?
On the other hand.
Suppose you are given the extensional definition of the foreign word “livro”, where “livro” = {Pride and Prejudice, The Terminal Man, The Great Gatsby, In Cold Blood}
I am sure you could make a good guess as to the meaning of “livro” just from its extensional definition.
Once you have the concept of “livro” in your mind, you could then apply your concept to include other objects, such as {Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets}
IE, we can only ever observe extensional definitions, as intensional definitions only exist within our minds.
P or not P; If P then Q, P therefore Q; all bachelors are unmarried men, etc.
I think Kripke would say the value of pi is necessarily 3.14..., but this is known a posteriori.
I think so.
Suppose that the modal operators merely refer to the quantifiers of First Order Logic (FOL), which is the case if every set of possible worlds is describable by a first-order predicate. In which case, we can eliminate the modal operators from any modal formula f to produce an equi-satisfiable formula f' without the modal operators, e.g by using skolemization. This means that although we obviously cannot represent modal truth as a formula in modal logic unless the modal logic is trivial (as per Tarski's undefinability theorem), we do at least have an automatable procedure for verifying the logical falsity of a modal formula f , i.e by substituting it for an equi-satisfiable formula f' without quantifiers, and then checking whether ~ f' is satisfiable. If it is, then f isn't satisfiable in all models, meaning that f cannot be logically true and hence isn't provable, as per Godel's completeness thorem.
On the other hand, suppose that the modal operators refer to second-order quantification over sets of possible worlds that cannot be described in terms of first-order predicates. In which case we "really have" modal operators above and beyond first-order quantification, since modal formulas are now assumed to not be reducible to FOL. But the price we pay is to lose Godelian completeness, and hence we can no longer use skolemization to determine the truth of the modal formula.
Essentially modal logic is just a game of let's pretend. Underneath the philosphical posturing one either has FOL with syntactically defined quantifiers equipped with a verifiable notion of external truth (skolemisation applied to a model), else one has second-order modal formulas without an unbiased means of deciding a truth value.
Would you want to dumb that down a tad?
It's not exactly personal preference, more agreed background. See if I can make this work.
The paragraph you quote is saying that in the early part of last century there was no Tarski-style way of treating truth for modal logic. That's what Kripke provided. So First-order logic had satisfaction as an extensional path to truth, but given that modal logic is intensional, it seemed impossible to use satisfaction there. Kripke did just that,
In first order logic, Algol satisfies {Algol, BASIC}, which is the extension of 'John's Pets". In modal logic, Algol satisfies {Algol, BASIC} in some world w, which is the extension of 'John's Pets" in that world, w.
Or changing examples, in England "Swans are white" is true just in the case that every instance of "swan" satisfies "...is white". How do we check this out? The logic doesn't say. That's not what it is for. In that possible world, Australia, "Swans are white" is also true just in the case that every instance of "swan" satisfies "...is white". But here, each instance of a swan is black, so the extension of "Swans are white" is empty, and "Swans are white" is false.
What we have is a rigorous account of what it is for "Swans are white" to be true. But it doesn't tell us if swans are white.
To work that out we are gong to have to go out and take a look.
This seems to be pretty much what you were saying.
Sot he "foundation for truth" in modal logic, as for first order logic, is satisfaction, and is extensional, but in modal logic we have truth-at-a-world, since what is true can vary from world to world.
This is good:
Quoting RussellA
If you both insist on this definition - this stipulation, if you will - then you and John will not agree as to what is a swan and what isn't. And this amounts to you and John using the word differently. You will say that there are swans in England, but not in Australia, while John may say that there are swans in Australia, but not in England.
Notice that it is an intensional definition: it does not list the very things that are swans, but gives a rule for deciding of something is a swan.
Quoting RussellA
Well, it might be worth pointing out the relativity of the relation between you and John. You are well aware that John thinks all swans are black, and he is perhaps aware you think all swans are white. You can get together and have a chat about the use of these words, and either come to an accommodation or go to war... It's perhaps a "personal" thing as to which definition you choose, but it is not "private".
And further, since you understand each other, you know that when John talks about swans, he means the black birds in Australia, not your white English ones. So you know that when John says "Swans are Black", what he is saying is true in his peculiar language. You know that "Swans are Black" as spoken by John is true if the individuals John picks out with his word "Swan" in Australia satisfy "...is black"; and that they do.
But that's the principle of charity at work, rather than anything to do with modal logic. It's you charitably recognising that John is making use of a different interpretation
to your own, one that you can translate.
So back to Quoting RussellA It's built in to the interpretation.
Not sure what "logical truth is here - but the value of pi is presumably the same in all possible worlds, and so a necessary truth. And the case is similar for 2+2=4, P or not P; If P then Q, P therefore Q; and perhaps "all bachelors are unmarried men", given certain precautions.
If what you are saying is that mathematical and logical truths are true in all possible worlds and hence necessarily true, then yep.
Is there a problem here?
I don't really think so. Strictly speaking, there is no further "meaning" to an extensional definition, only the set of items. If we switch to a meaning, and extend the set on that principle, then we've used an intensional definition to do that. That's why logic always consists of both aspects. the intensional must be grounded in substance (extensionality), but the extensionality cannot force necessary limits on the intensional, to free us to go beyond the limited capacity of human observation.
It may be the case, that intensional definitions only truly exist in minds (denying Platonism which allows for independent ideas), but the extensional definition is also only the product of minds. Even though the extensional utilizes empirical observations, it actual becomes trapped by that dependence, unless we allow for arbitrariness to infiltrate. In my other post, I explained how Pythagoras used the theory of participation to escape that trap, in the development of what is now known as Platonism.
By the theory of participation, which Plato explains very well and attributes to Pythagoras, the set of things which compose the extensional definition, are members of that set because they partake in the Idea, which is the defining meaning. This is an independently existing Idea (Platonism), and so it is an objective intensional definition, in a stronger sense than inter-subjective objectivity, because there is supposed to be a real independent idea which provides the meaning.
Platonism is common in mathematical interpretations. The Idea of "two" for example, is supposed to have real meaning, independent from human minds, so the symbol stands for that intensional package of meaning, as an object. Then these mathematical objects can provide the substance for extensionality. Intensionality and extensionality are separated in analysis, theory, but in practise they're all wrapped up in each other.
No. In modal logic there is a difference between the actual world and other possible words. It's that the actual world is w? and the world at which accessibility relations begin. In metaphysics the actual world is a bit different, and no where near so clearly explained. But, for some conversations, we can use modal logic and take the metaphysically actual world as the modally actual world, and look that the accessibility relations that originate in the metaphysically actual world.
This constipated way of talking is a result of your convolute form of expression. It just says that we can consider how things might have been different.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That'd be 'casue it's only a problem of you misunderstand modal logic in your peculiar fashion.
Quoting RussellA
Pretty much. Another way to think of a intension is the rule we apply in order to decide, say, if that bird is a swan or not. But the truth of "That bird is a swan" is completely determined by the extension of "That bird" and the extension of "...is a swan": it will be true if and only if "That bird" satisfies "...is a swan"
But it's worth noting that we agree on most "intensional definitions". They are not private. And extensions are not decided only by taking a look. That 3 is a prime is not an empirical fact.
Mathematical truths are distinct from logical truths. It seems strange that mathematics cannot be reduced to logic when both logical and mathematical truths have the force of necessity.
Well, maybe. More often formal logic is treated as a branch of maths, seen as grounding set theory and so the whole edifice. Whether this is correct remains contentious - logicism vs formalism vs structuralism.
DO we know maths cannot be reduced to logic? We know that specific logicist programmes such as Frege–Russell and Principia, failed in specific ways. Do we know that maths cannot be reduced to logic? We know that in any sufficiently strong formal system (including arithmetic), there are true but unprovable statements in that system. But we know this because of logic... So its going to depend on wha that reduction is.
It might b simplest to treat logic and maths as much the same sort of thing.
We cannot "take the metaphysically actual world as the modally actual world" because the difference between these two is the difference you insisted that we must respect. The "metaphysically actual world" is the world we live and act in. The "modally actual world" is a representation. That is the difference which you accepted in the other thread, and agreed that we must respect. By the same principle, "Nixon" refers to something different in the metaphysically actual world, from what it refers to in the modally actual world. And we must respect the fact that there is a significant difference between these two, to allow for the reality of incomplete, mistaken, or otherwise misguided representations posing as the "modally actual world". As you say, the modally actual world is just another possible world, though it is assigned special status.
This is why I emphasized in the other thread that truth is a judgement. The representation is judged to be adequate, and given the name "actual world", but it is still just a representation which could be mistaken. But "truth" does not mean correspondence in modal logic. It is very important to respect this difference between the representation within the modal model which is called "the actual world", and the real "metaphysically actual world", because "the actual world" in modal logic can be created from a variety of different principles which do not necessarily require rigorous criteria of "truth" in the sense of correspondence. The "modally actual world" does not necessarily correspond with the metaphysically actual world. That's the deficiency of assigning "truth" an entirely extensional meaning, which the article refers to in section 1.2. Truth is arbitrary. This is required to make the modal model effective. Instead of an intensional criteria for "truth", there is an extensional stipulation.
[quote=SEP]Possible world semantics, therefore, explains the intensionality of modal logic by revealing that the syntax of the modal operators prevents an adequate expression of the meanings of the sentences in which they occur. Spelled out as possible world truth conditions, those meanings can be expressed in a wholly extensional fashion.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
This is a good example, I suggest you take a good close look. With the intensional definition we have criteria, "the rule" by which we judge whether or not "that bird is a swan" is true. We follow the rule and make the judgement. By the extensional definition however, "that bird is a swan" is true if that bird is a swan, i.e. is a member of that set. In this case the judgement may be completely arbitrary. Without an intensional definition, we can decide for whatever reason we want, whether or not the bird is a swan, we place it in the set of swans or not, and this forms the grounds for whether or not the proposition is true.
However, as Plato showed, Pythagoras avoided that arbitrariness by assuming real independent Ideas, and the theory of participation. The independent Idea serves as the criteria for "swan" which human beings don't necessarily know, making the bird a member of the set or not, without any human being needing to judge. This is Platonism. Now there is an eternal objective Idea of "swan", and it is true that all the birds who are swans, are swans because they partake in this Idea. So "is a swan" is satisfied if the bird partakes in the Idea of swan, whether or not a human being makes that judgement. Furthermore, "'that bird is a swan' is true if that bird is a swan", implies that the latter "is a swan" means partakes in the Platonic Idea of swan.
All I did was point to the difference between metaphysics and modality.
And this is not my account. The account here is the standard account of logicians.
But you twist and swivel.
There are things that you could say here that would be interesting. But your inability to understand modal logic prevents you from framing them in anything like a coherent fashion.
Step by step.
1. The core mistake: reifying the “modally actual world”
Your opening move is this: We cannot "take the metaphysically actual world as the modally actual world" because … the "modally actual world" is a representation. This misfires because in possible-world semantics, “the modally actual world” is not a representation of the metaphysically actual world. It just is the world designated by the model as actual. There is no further ontological claim being made.
As I have said, within a modal model, we stipulate a world as actual, and then examine accessibility relations from it. That stipulation does not compete with metaphysical actuality; it is a modelling device.
You are treating the model as if it were trying — and possibly failing — to represent reality. But modal semantics is not representational in that sense. It is instrumental. So the objection attacks a position that isn’t there.
2. Confusion between semantic stipulation and epistemic judgement
You write "This is why I emphasized … that truth is a judgement". That is false, or at least badly equivocal. In modal semantics, truth-at-a-world is not a judgement, nor is it an epistemic act. It is a semantic relation defined by the model. No one is “judging” that Nixon exists at a world; the valuation function assigns extensions at that world. That’s it. You slide illicitly from truth-in-a-model to truth-as-human-judgement. This is a category mistake.
You are psychologising semantics.
3. The Nixon move fails for the same reason. You say that "Nixon" refers to something different in the metaphysically actual world, from what it refers to in the modally actual world. Again: no. Within a model, “Nixon” has an extension at each world in which it exosts. Across models, reference is fixed by interpretation. None of this implies that the model’s Nixon is a representation that might be mistaken.
Mistake only arises if you assume the model is making a claim about the world. It isn’t. It’s a tool.
This is exactly the point Kripke, Lewis, and the SEP article are making — and which you are resisting by importing epistemology where it does not belong.
4. Misreading SEP on extensionality
You quote SEP as spelled out as possible world truth conditions, those meanings can be expressed in a wholly extensional fashion, then respond that truth is arbitrary. That is simply incorrect.
Truth is not arbitrary; it is stipulated relative to a model. That is not arbitrariness in the philosophical sense, any more than choosing a coordinate system is arbitrary in physics. Extensionality ? lack of constraint. Instead, once the model is fixed, truth values follow mechanically.
You are conflating “not grounded in metaphysical correspondence” with “arbitrary”. Those are very different claims.
5. The swan example: a serious error
You write that without an intensional definition, we can decide for whatever reason we want … whether or not the bird is a swan. This is flatly false. In extensional semantics, membership is fixed by the interpretation function. There is no discretion left to the user once the model is set up. You are smuggling human judgement back in again, where it explicitly does not belong.
Intensions explain how extensions vary across worlds, not that extensions are chosen on a whim.
6. The Platonic turn is a non sequitur
Your appeal to Plato and Ideas does no work here. Possible-world semantics is neutral on whether universals are Platonic, Aristotelian, nominalist, or fictional. Introducing Forms does not “solve” a problem — because there was no problem to begin with. You move from “extensions are stipulated in a model” to “therefore we need eternal Ideas” That inference is invalid.
Modal logic does not require metaphysical grounding to function, any more than arithmetic requires Platonism to be usable.
You are repeatedly:
The critique dissolves once the role of possible-world semantics is properly understood.
As you say, an extensional definition is trapped by limited empirical observations.
Suppose there is an extensional definition of S, where S = {two red books, two green trees, two black thoughts}
You say that the elements of the set S are there because they are part of the Platonic “Idea” of S, where the “Idea” is the intensional meaning of S, and is objective and independent of the human mind.
The problem is, how can you go from the extensional definition of S existing in your mind to an intensional definition of S existing independently of your mind?
IE, what is the intensional definition of S?
I think the same sorts of questions could be asked about ordinary language use. If Paul talks about x, what guarantees that Paul knows what his words mean?
Btw, this:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
is straight up incorrect. This is the type of thing Meta just pulls out of his butt.
At this exact moment in time, when I write “swan”, I know without doubt what my concept of a swan is.
However, with time, as I learn new things about swans, my concept of a swan will change. However, I will still use the same word “swan”.
IE, what I mean when I write “swan” will inevitably change with time.
Therefore, one can say that Paul knows without doubt what he means when he talks about "x", even though what he means by "x" must inevitably change with time, as he learns new things about "x".
If what I mean by “swan” inevitably changes with time and what Paul means by “swan” inevitably changes with time, it is perhaps surprising that communication using language is possible at all.
I am thinking of the following statement: "Necessarily, Frosty the Snowman does not exist." I think you would say the statement lacks any terms with extension. However, it appears to be a true statement.
If the statement is true, by reference to what is it true?
I think it would be right to say that "Swan" defined in such an such a way, would be a de dicto proposition.
That’s the problem. What are the essential properties of a “swan”. This sounds like Aristotle’s essences.
The web site - https://birdsology.com/25-fascinating-characteristics-of-swans/ - lists 25 characteristics of swans, including 1 distinctive long necks 2 powerful flight capabilities 3 pristine black and white plumage…….. 25. Limited Global Species but Wide Range
Are these necessary or contingent properties of being a “swan”?
I do not understand what the problem is; can you elaborate?
Good question.
Approximate definitions of de re an de dicto:
De re = a specific thing that is meant.
De dicto = a nonspecific thing that is meant.
Intensionality appears to be something like --> the picking out of "something" as the referent; extensionality appears to be the "thing" that is picked out by reference, where "something" and "thing" may not need to be physical substances in the actual world.
Intensional definitions (properties, relations, and propositions) are defined by possible world semantics independent of any specific language.
The de re and de dicto distinction helps articulate essential as opposed to accidental properties by using modal logic. De re classification anticipates identity "across worlds."
Hopefully summarising your posts correctly and adding my own understanding.
In possible world 5 (England)
Step one - First we start with many observations of things that are waterfowl, flighted and white. We accept that somewhere hidden could have been a solitary black flighted waterfowl.
Step two - Someone in authority, along the lines of JL Auston’s performative utterance, officially declares that “swans” are {waterfowls, flighted, white}. This fits in with Russell’s and Kripke's idea that proper names are descriptions, and not references to Aristotelian essences. Such an authority could be a person, such as a King, or general consensus.
Step three - In the event that a solitary black flighted waterfowl was discovered, by definition, it could not be a “swan” but must be something else.
Step four - At least there is now a foundation for Wittgenstein's language game, enabling a public language with a measure of agreement as to the meaning of words used.
It is clear that an extensional definition as found in a public dictionary can never give us the intensional meaning of a word. It may be that “Swan” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}, where “white” = {low saturation, reflects almost all wavelengths of light}. But then “light” = {electromagnetic radiation, composed of photons}, ad infinitum
For Wittgenstein, on the one hand, all thoughts are spoken and on the other hand there can be no private language. This implies that all thoughts are necessarily part of a public language. Thereby, there is no separation between the private concept of a swan and the public word “swan”. Such is the consequence that the meaning of swan, the intension of swan, becomes knowable within a public language game. In summary, private concepts are not particular to the individual but general within the public language game and necessarily apply within the language game.
But, is it really the case that Wittgenstein enables a public understanding of the intensional meaning of words!?
In possible world semantics, linguistic truth is not arbitrary. In possible world 5 (England) there may be a language game whereby “swans are white” is true, and in possible world 6 (Australia) there may be a different language game whereby “swans are black” is true. Truth is relative between different language games, between different possible worlds.
In possible world semantics, logical truth is not arbitrary. As it is true that the number 3 is a prime in all possible worlds, the material truth tables are true in all possible worlds, even though the particular forms of life expressed within these material truth tables may be different in different possible worlds.
How can one ever know what is essential to something.
For example, what is essential to something being a “game”.
What is essential to “a table”, “love”, “pain”, “a house”, etc.
If swan = frog, in possible world 6, then intensionally truth is relative in a manner of speaking, but only because the words refer to different things. Truth is evaluated by what is meant, which can change between speakers or speakers in different possible worlds.
On the other hand, I would think that truth would not be relative in an extensional sense. So "that is a swan" will be true in one possible world and false in another, but only because swan means frog in one of the possible worlds. Extensionally, the referent is unchanged.
Quoting RussellA
I don't think artifacts like houses have an essence.
Quoting RussellA
It seems to me that: knowing that something has an essence, and for example that the essence of a dog is different from that of a swan, is not the same as knowing what those essences are.
This wouldn't be a problem for first order logic. When your concept of a swan changes, the interpretation in your model changes. No biggie.
In possible world 5
Let the word “swan” have both the intension and extension {waterfowl, flighted, white}
Let the word “frog” have both the intension and extension {short bodied, protruding eyes, strong hind legs}
Then
It is true that “swans” are white
It is true that “frogs” have strong hind legs
It is false that “swans” have strong hind legs
It is false that “frogs” are white
In possible world 6
Let the word “swan” have both the intension and extension {short bodied, protruding eyes, strong hind legs}
Let the word “frog” have both the intension and extension {waterfowl, flighted, white}
Then
It is true that “swans” have strong hind legs
It is true that “frogs” are white
It is false that “swans” are white
It is false that “frogs” strong hind legs
Therefore, what is true in possible world 5 is false in possible world 6, and what is false in possible world 5 is true in possible world 6
Truth is relative in both an intensional and extensional sense.
====================================================================
Quoting NotAristotle
Then what makes a house not a table?
====================================================================
Quoting NotAristotle
If you don't know the essence of a dog, and you don't know the essence of a swan, then how do you know that they are different?
I do not think so. You have changed the word that is used, and each utterance refers to a different thing, intensionally. But the thing that belongs to the predicates enumerated does not itself change. In other words, the thing of which "has strong hind legs" is predicated does not change.
Logic is about what we can coherently say. At its best it applies not only to the world around us but to other things we talk about, setting out such things as validity and implication in the most general terms.
I used the example of Middle Earth previously. IF logic did not apply to Middle Earth, the books would be unreasonable. Our logic ought apply in such cases. And indeed it does.
Here's an example from propositional logic. Frodo walked into Mordor. Samwise also walked into Mordor. And we can use a logical rule that allows us to introduce a conjunction. We can write "Frodo walked into Mordor AND Samwise also walked into Mordor."
We can move on to first order logic. Since Frodo walked in to Mordor, we can conclude that Something walked in to Mordor. This is an instance of the rule of Existential Generalisation. Formally, it's fa ? ?x(fx) — If a is f, then there is an x such that x is f.
Have we proved, by this, that Frodo exists? Not at all. We introduced Frodo when we set up the Domain of Middle Earth. His existence is not a consequence of our deductions, but a presumption or stipulation.
The domain is in a sense a list of the things we are talking about. In first order logic and basic modal logic it is static. (There are variable-domain modal logics.)
Quoting RussellA
I'm not at all sure what this might mean, and it may well be a good rendering of something Meta has said. However not all extensional definitions are empirical. We can set up the extension of "Creatures who walked in to Mordor" as {Frodo, Samwise} without doing empirical observations of the borders in Middle Earth. The extension of some predicate can be any of the members of the Domain. It can be arbitrary, but of course it that does not mean that it is always arbitrary. We put {Frodo, Samwise} into the extension of "...walked into Mordor" because that's what happens in the book.
There is nothing here about having to be empirically verifiable.
Also, an even more pedantic point. S = {two red books, two green trees, two black thoughts} is not an extensional definition - it's intensional. It doesn't list five individuals but gives instructions for picking out five individuals. An extensional definition would list which books, which trees and which thoughts. So "what is the intensional definition of S" is already answered by the definition you gave...
Strange, isn't it. Logic does not, and ought not, presume Platonism or realism or any other philosophical doctrine. If it did, then using it to decide between these doctrines would be begging the question - as if it were reasonable to presume Platonism in order to prove Platonism. Logic is ontologically neutral.
So here I might go back to the formal definition of "intensional" given previously. Quoting Banno
So what would be the intension of S, which in some world is S = {two red books, two green trees, two black thoughts}, in every possible world? Well, there will be worlds in which one of the two red books is green, and worlds in which one of the black thoughts didn't happen. The extension of S in other possible worlds is not given, so the intension of S per se remains unsettled. So we have an intensional definition of S in some world w?, but find that its intension can not be analysed across other possible worlds. It has as yet no intension per se.
Now as a side issue, take a look at how long this reply is. It's not difficult, I hope, but it is intricate. The formal language will pay out, if we stick to it. We know that because we know that modal logic is consistent, and hence that if we stick to it we will get a consistent result.
And it follows that attempts to show global inconsistency in standard modal logic will not work.
Indeed. The extension will be different in different interpretations.
The analysis of kinds differs from the analysis of individuals. For kinds, we look to criteria of membership rather than identity and persistence conditions across time and possible worlds. Identity, reference and existence relative to a domain are aspects of individuals.
It's often an error to look at identity, reference and existence in kinds.
This is problematic. See my comments about existential quantification and domains, above. If we set up a domain that includes Frosty, then we can use existential generalisation: "Frosty is a snowman, therefore something is a snowman" and suppose that we have proven that snowmen exist when what we have actually done is to assume that snowmen exist when we set out the domain.
So, if Frosty is treated as a constant that denotes an individual in the domain, we might parse "Necessarily, Frosty the Snowman does not exist" as ?¬?x(x = Frosty). But this is incoherent, because the interpretation already assigns Frosty to an element of the domain. You cannot then say, necessarily, that Frosty does not exist. (de re reading)
If the claim means that in the actual world, no individual satisfies the description “Frosty the Snowman”, and this holds in every accessible world, then this is a claim about the emptiness of a predicate, not about the non-existence of a named individual. (de dicto reading)
We should avoid Meta's error of thinking that logic must imply metaphysics, the confusion between existence in the model, which amounts to domain membership, and existence simpliciter, which logic says little about. (But which folk seem to think must be dependent on empirical observation alone, a point of contention outside of this thread.)
Yes, I see you understand the issue very well then. Every time you refer to "Nixon" or "the actual world" as if this is a representation of the real person, or the real world, within the modal model, this is incorrect. You are wrong in doing this because as you clearly state here, it "is not a representation of the metaphysically actual world. It just is the world designated by the model as actual. There is no further ontological claim being made."
Since you understand this separation very well, could you please, in the future, refrain from making statements like the following:
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Quoting Banno
Notice, "identity" names an individual, and insisting that the name refers to the same individual across different possible worlds violates what you insist that you understand as #1 above.
Quoting Banno
Here you go, projecting your own error on to me, in your usual straw man way. Clearly, with the evidence of the quotes above, you are the one treating the model as if it is trying to represent a real person, the one called "Nixon".
Quoting Banno
You sure as hell were, insisting that "Nixon" refers to "the same fellow" in different possible worlds.
Quoting Banno
This clearly contradicts your #1, which says: "This misfires because in possible-world semantics, “the modally actual world” is not a representation of the metaphysically actual world. It just is the world designated by the model as actual."
In #1 you are saying that there is no relationship between the metaphysically actual world and the modal actual world. In #3 you say that "Nixon" refers to the same thing in both.
Quoting Banno
That looks like "arbitrary" to me. I don't know why you would argue against this. One stipulates "truth" according to one's needs, or purposes, just like in physics one stipulates the rest frame according to what is required for the purpose. That is arbitrariness. In other words, there is no set system of rigorous criteria by which truth is determined. Would you prefer if I used "subjectivity" instead of "arbitrary"?
Quoting Banno
That is intensionality. It is intensionality entering into the extensions which curbs the arbitrariness. But, as the SEP indicates, the meaning of the operators is lacking in rigor. This allows the influence of subjectivity.
Quoting Banno
OK, then please quit doing things like talking about "Nixon" as if this refers to a metaphysically grounded fellow. You cannot have it both ways, insist that modal logic is not metaphysically grounded, yet speak about the items within possible worlds as if they are grounded in a metaphysical world.
Quoting RussellA
That is a problem, addressed by Aristotle. And analysis of this problem leads to his refutation of Platonism. It is sort of like the interaction problem. We do not have direct access to the independent Ideas, so we can never really know if our intensional definitions are correct. This renders the Platonic ideas epistemically useless. That's why Banno claims, above, that Platonism is irrelevant. But without assuming the Ideas we have no assurance that there is such a thing as "truth". So every time someone claims an independent truth, Platonism is implied.
So Banno claims that truth is not arbitrary, and also claims that Platonism is irrelevant. This leaves "truth" as either completely arbitrary, or rescued from arbitrariness by subjectivity.
Quoting frank
Why would you have a problem with that? It's commonly understood that "2" is a numeral which represents a mathematical object, known as the number two.
Quoting NotAristotle
I don't think I really understand the question here. Wouldn't we have to check every snowman, and make sure that it is not Frosty before we conclude that Frosty the Snowman does not exist. Or could we go through a process of intensional definition, and deductive logic, to make that conclusion?
Quoting Banno
This is incorrect. The Domain spoken about here is clearly not a list of the "things". Things exist and you have explicitly stated that you have not proven the existence of what the words refer to. Until then, it is wrong to claim that your words refer to things. Otherwise we could prove all sorts of inductive conclusions to be wrong, by talking about imaginary things. Someone claims all swans are white, all I have to do is talk about a black one as a "thing" and I've proven that proposition to be wrong.
Using a name does not imply that there is a thing which corresponds to that name. Simply put, things have identity. And things are confined to the metaphysically actual world. Your claim that a name in a modal model refers to a thing with an identity is simply incorrect, as is evident from the fact that a "possible world" is not a thing itself, it is an interpretive tool.
It's not the case that logic necessarily implies metaphysics, but using metaphysical terms like "thing" and "identity" do imply metaphysics. And if you believe that epistemology can be separated from its metaphysical grounding you are mistaken.
The model-theoretic discussion: In possible-world semantics, the “actual world” is just a designated world in the model. It has no necessary connection to metaphysical reality. The model doesn’t aim to represent the real world; it simply stipulates a world as actual for the purposes of evaluating modal claims.
The metaphysical discussion: That’s the world we inhabit. Whether “Nixon” exists here or not is a separate question. The modal model doesn’t care; it just assigns extensions to names and predicates according to the interpretation function.
I dunno. There's a madness to Meta's responses. I've mostly given up trying to make sense of his posts. It's pretty much incomprehensible.
Again, this is not my account that I am giving. It is the standard account.
Logic itself is formal and syntactic. Modal logic, for example, manipulates symbols and operators according to rules. It does not by itself make claims about what exists in reality. There’s no necessary metaphysical commitment in saying “?P ? P” or in using quantifiers. Using words like “thing” or “identity” does not automatically import metaphysics into the formal system. These are often placeholders in a logical model. In possible-world semantics, “identity” can just mean having the same extension in a world according to the valuation function, not metaphysical sameness. Treating formal labels as metaphysically loaded is precisely the error I was critiquing in the Nixon example. Claiming that epistemology must always be grounded in metaphysics is false. You can study knowledge, belief, or justification in a formal or model-theoretic setting without assuming that the objects of knowledge exist metaphysically in a particular way.
@Frank's description is accurate.
There might be a reversal in your account, in that you have an "official" definition of "swan" and work through to the language game. but that's not what Austin or Wittgenstein might say. The game comes first, the definition is post hoc. We call those birds "swans", and later invent the definition "waterfowls, flighted, white", and later on finding a black swan we drop the "white". The game has priority.
And "those birds", as a list, is the extension of "swan". The very individuals...
Kripke’s Possible World Semantics is logic demanding purity in language and purity in reality. However, neither is pure when studied closely and neither need be.
Kripke asserts that science discovers that “Water is H2O” is a statement of identify. This is not the case. Utilizing the empirical implications of Atomic Theory of Matter, science discovers the molecular composition of everyday objects that we name like water”, “air”, “soil”, etc. One finding that science discovered is naturally occurring samples named “water” consistently will be composed of “H2O” molecules and other isotopes, gases, organics, and dissolved salts. Science is concerned with statements of composition not identity.
This poses a problem for the process of rigid designation. In rigid designation, the term “water” must refer to H2O in all possible worlds, because that is the structure it referred to when the name was first introduced (or “baptized”) in our world. This is quite a feat given that this was prior to any understanding of Atomic Theory. Somehow when naming any liquid we called “water” we somehow miraculously only referred to H2O and selectively excluded any other molecules that may have beenpresent, like “D2O”, “NaCl”, etc.
Kripke may respond that "water" fixes its reference to the dominant underlying chemical structure in our world. But this sounds more like linguistic legislation, the stipulation of essence. Consider the term “air”, another term that was used well before the development of Atomic Theory. What is the dominant underlying chemical structure that was reference when the term was first introduced? Nitrogen? Oxygen? Argon? According to Kripke, science discovers that “Air is N2” because it is the dominant underlying chemical structure. But this seems misaligned with how we typically use this term, “We took a trip to the mountains to breathe fresh air.” We could counter with another stipulation, and consider biological function to fix its reference, “Air is O2”.
Kripke imagines humans selectively baptizing a particular microscopic molecule and ignoring others by decreeing what are the dominant underlying chemical structure. What he really seems to be doing is performing a metamorphosis of the term “water” into the term “H2O” to gain that purity. “Water is H2O” is not what he is talking about, but “H2O is H2O”. This is the purity he longs for and easily fits into his Possible World Semantics. However, it seems at a cost, what was once a posteriori knowledge now turns into a priori analytical truth.
Here's a proposal for a compromise. Since you insist that names like "Frodo" which actually refer to ideas, refer to "things", and you presume the existence of these things, would you agree that this is Platonism? I think there may be some coherence to your interpretations if you maintain Platonism.
Quoting Banno
Do you agree, that what you call "the standard account", is a Platonist account?
There are other accounts which are not necessarily Platonist, such as the denial of identity that I am trying to bring to your attention. However, you prefer a Platonist account.
There's no space for a compromise. I'm engaged in giving the standard account of how modal logic and possible world semantics function. You are up the garden path.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
"Frodo" refers to Frodo, a fictional character in LOTR. It does not refer to the idea of Frodo.. We have two different things - Frodo, who carried the one ring, and the idea of Frodo, which never carried anything. "Frodo" is the name of Frodo, not the name of the-idea-of-Frodo.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
After I've spent a hour or so explaining that logic does not have metaphysical consequences, and specifically pointed out thatQuoting Banno
Well, no.
Why am I not surprised?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes Metaphysician, check every snowman in the whole world and double check that none of them is Frosty; that would be an excellent use of your reason.
The truth tables are important in Tarski’s First Order Logic. For example, the material implication truth table, whereby:
P.....Q.....if P then Q
==================
T.....T..........T
T.....F..........F
F.....T..........T
F.....F..........T
Kripke extended First Order Logic into Modal Logic K adding necessity and possibility, where the truth table shown above remains applicable to each accessible world.
Therefore truth, as expressed by truth tables, cannot be said to be arbitrary and is in this sense objective rather than subjective.
There's nothing arbitrary here. It's determined by the formal structure. The modal operators ? and ? are defined in relation to that formal structure by the introduction of possible worlds. The rules of logic and the structure of models fix truth independently of anyone’s opinion, so truth is objective in the formal sense.
Meta hasn't been able to follow this. But it is how it works.
Can I also at this stage express my appreciation to you, and @Frank for putting in the effort to understand what is happening here before launching into a critique. And thanks for the opportunity presented by this thread. paraphrasing is an excellent way to improve my comprehension.
Fundamentally, I think it is a problem to try and establish identity between two distinct ideas. There is always nuanced differences which makes such an identity incorrect. Some people would say that it's a difference which doesn't make a difference, but that is contradictory because if it is noticed as a difference it has already made a difference.
Mathematicians are often inclined to do this with equality (=). They will say that "2+2" represents the same idea as "4". But this is clearly false because there is an operator "+" within "2+2", so obviously it cannot be the same idea as "4". This is why it is best for good philosophy, to maintain a very clear distinction between identity and equality. Equality is a relation between two individuals within a category (kind). You and I as human beings are equal. But identity is unique to an individual.
Quoting Banno
My proposed compromise was for you to recognize that what you call "the standard account" is Platonist. That shouldn't be difficult. Modern "standard" interpretations of mathematics are clearly Platonist. The rule of consistency would suggest that modal logic would be interpreted in a Platonic way as well. Surely there is "space" for that unless you have some good reason not to.
Also, your supposed "standard account" is not the only account. That's why we're reading the SEP to find out about all the alternative interpretations. That's what good philosophy is all about, understanding the difference between the different possibilities.
Quoting Banno
A fictional character is an idea, not a thing. That's pretty obvious. Why would you deny it?
Quoting Banno
What is this nonsense? We have the idea of Frodo carrying a ring, and the idea of Frodo not carrying a ring. Two distinct ideas.. Why do you attempt to make ideas which are very simple and easy to understand, extremely complex and difficult?
Quoting RussellA
It is those additions which introduce subjectivity. The subjectivity being the intentional products of the mind which enter due to the variance in purpose, and are allowed to contaminate judgement, rendering "truth" as fundamentally subjective.
[quote=SEP]On the assumption that there is a (nonempty) set of all possible worlds and a set of all possible individuals, we can define “objective” notions of truth at a world and of truth simpliciter, that is, notions that are not simply relative to formal, mathematical interpretations but, rather, correspond to objective reality in all its modal glory. Let ? be a modal language whose names and predicates represent those in some fragment of ordinary language (as in our examples (5) and (6) above). Say that M is the “intended” interpretation of ? if (i) its set W of “possible worlds” is in fact the set of all possible worlds, (ii) its designated “actual world” is in fact the actual world, (iii) its set D of “possible individuals” is in fact the set of all possible individuals, and (iv) the referents assigned to the names of ? and the intensions assigned to the predicates of ? are the ones they in fact have. Then, where M is the intended interpretation of ?, we can say that a sentence ? of ? is true at a possible world w just in case ? is trueM at w, and that ? is true just in case it is trueM at the actual world. (Falsity at w and falsity, simpliciter, are defined accordingly.) Under the assumption in question, then, the modal clause above takes on pretty much the exact form of our informal principle Nec.
[/quote]
Notice, necessity is not based in the set of all possible worlds, it is based in the assumption that there is a set of all possible worlds. @Banno, this is inherently Platonist. It assumes an idea "all possible worlds" which is unknown to us, independent. Then, (i) the interpretation M, is dependent on W being "in fact the set of all possible worlds". Of course, one could never, in fact, know the set of all possible worlds, so the judgement of "in fact the set of all possible worlds" is purely subjective.
Further, (ii), "its designated 'actual world' is in fact the actual world" is something which is truly impossible. This is the ongoing discussion I've had with Banno. It is a problem which Banno seems to acknowledge but refuses to respect. So what happens here is that a subjective representation of "the actual world" is assumed to be "in fact the actual world", as this is a requirement.
Then (iii) repeats the subjectivity of (i), and (iv) repeats the problem of (ii).
No, it doesn't.
That's a useless and baseless assertion if I've ever seen one.
Thank you for your opinion nonetheless.
I feel that there is some truth in the following, but cannot clearly see it. Hopefully it adds something.
JL Austin’s performative and constative utterances is relevant to Wittgenstein’s Language Games
Suppose in Possible World 5 there is a form of life and a language game.
Before any performative utterances by an authority
JL Austin discussed performative and constative utterances.
Suppose in this world people see a family resemblance between the elements of the set {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}
We can then say that there is something X that the elements of this set have in common. In other words, the elements of this set are part of the domain of X
As regards X = {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}
1 - This is not an extensional definition, as the set does not include every element that falls under the definition.
2 - This is not an intensional definition, as the set does not include necessary and sufficient elements to be analytically valid.
Suppose in this world people also see a family resemblance between the elements of the set {waterfowl, flighted, white}
We can then say that there is something Y that the elements of this set have in common.
As regards Y = {waterfowl, flighted, white}
1 - This is not an extensional definition, as the set does not include every element that falls under the definition.
2 - This is not an intensional definition, as the set does not include necessary and sufficient elements to be analytically valid.
We now have two sets. Set X whose elements are concrete things and set Y whose elements are abstract properties.
But people also observe the following:
“This swan in Hyde Park” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}
“That swan on the Thames” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}
“Those swans on the Serpentine” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}
As regards “This swan in Hyde Park” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}
1 - This is not an extensional definition, as the set does not include every element that falls under its definition
2 - This is not an intensional definition, as the set does not include necessary and sufficient elements to be analytically valid.
From this we can say that there is a concrete something X that has the properties Y.
After performative utterances by an authority
What X is is unknown, but for linguistic convenience it can be given a name, and in a performative act someone in authority names it “swan”.
As regards “swan” = {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}.
1 - This is not an extensional definition, as the set does not include every object that falls under the definition.
2 - This is not an intensional definition, as the set does not include necessary and sufficient elements to be analytically valid.
Both the intensional and extensional definition of “swan” are still unknown, but what is known is that the elements of the set have a family resemblance. This means that “swan” is the name of a family resemblance between the elements of the set.
What Y is is unknown, but for linguistic convenience it can be given a name, and in a performative act someone in authority names it “swanness”.
As regards “swanness ” = {waterfowl, flighted, white}.
1 - This is now an extensional definition, because a performative utterance by an authority, and as the set does include every object that falls under the definition
2 - This is now an intensional definition, because a performative utterance by an authority, and as the set does include necessary and sufficient elements to be analytically valid.
Therefore, if something is observed that is {waterfowl, flighted, black} then by definition it has no "swanness".
As regards swan = {swanness}
1 - This is an extensional definition, because swanness is an extensional definition
2 - This is an intensional definition, because swanness is an intensional definition.
In summary, in a language game before performative utterances, sets of concrete and abstract elements can be neither extensional nor intensional definitions, but within a language game, performative utterances can create extensional and intensional definitions
Possible world 8, Tolkein's Middle Earth
“Creatures who walked into Mordor” = {Frodo, Samwise} was a performative rather than constative utterance by Tolkein.
Therefore, it is not an extensional definition, because the set does not include every element that falls under its definition. I am sure other creatures than Frodo and Samwise walked into Mordor.
Neither is it an intensional definition, because although Tolkein tells us that Frodo and Samwise necessarily walked into Mordor, that Frodo and Samwise walked into Mordor is not sufficient to the truth of the expression “creatures who walked into Mordor”.
Question
Before any performative utterance by an authority, X = {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}.
Does X refer to the set of elements or does it refer to the family resemblance between the elements, ie, does it refer to the elements as part of the domain of X?
Dude. I could resurrect Frege and transport him to your house to explain to you what an abstract object is and you still would maintain some other baloney you made up.
In our world, the proposition “pigs cannot fly” is true. This is an objective fact. My judgement that “pigs cannot fly” is not a subjective judgement.
Modal logic K developed by Kripke introduced the concepts necessary and possible. He introduced possible world semantics, not just any possible world but accessible possible worlds.
What are accessible possible worlds?
Intuitively, an unknown world cannot be an accessible possible world.
Not “all” possible worlds are accessible, because some worlds will be unknown to us.
I could say that possible world 5 is accessible because it follows the logic of our world, such that it is possible in world 5 that “pigs can fly” is true. Or I could say that possible world 5 is accessible because it follows the natural laws of our world, such that “pigs can fly” is false but “pigs can vote” is true.
Suppose I use the model that a possible world is accessible because it follows the logic of our world. Then in possible world 5, pigs can fly.
Then in possible world 5 the proposition “pigs can fly” is true is not a subjective judgement, because in possible world 5 pigs can fly, which is an objective fact within possible world 5.
(I am willing to be corrected about my knowledge of modal logic).
My understanding of the above text is that predicating "swan" will refer to some subset in the domain (of all swans; that is, of all the things that conform to the predication).
This is the confusion that underpins Meta previously not accepting that 0.9? = 1, and rejecting instantaneous velocity; indeed, in his not understanding limits, generally. He confuses what is represented with the representation.
2+2 and 4 are different expressions for the same number. The "=" is used to express this. Hence we can write
The claim that equality is only a relation “within a kind” (like moral or political equality) equivocates between normative or comparative equality (you and I are equal as citizens), and mathematical identity (2 + 2 = 4). Put simply, folk do differentiate normative equity and identity. We recognise a difference between two citizens being equal and two numbers being equal.
How does this relate to Meta's misunderstanding of modal logic? We can have different descriptions of the very same object. Meta seems to think that if we have different descriptions, we must thereby have different objects. Hence his insistence that when we consider what it might have been like if Nixon had not won the 1972 election, we cannot be talking about Nixon. Hence his rejection of cross-world identity.
Now there are philosophical issues here, to be sure. But while Meta insists that we cannot have different descriptions of the same thing, he cannot address these other issues.
The de dicto reading makes more sense to me. If I am tracking the terminology correctly, the question I am running into is: if the predicate is an empty set, doesn't that mean there is no extension for that predicate? But if there is no extension, can we refer to anything intensionally? :chin:
That some statements about the actual world are objective facts doesn't mean that all are.
From what I see, you've just demonstrated the subjectivity which I referred to.
Quoting Banno
The axiom of extensionality makes a statement about equality. You can interpret this as a statement of identity if you want. But as I've demonstrated many times in this forum, that is not a very good approach philosophically, as it produces a violation of the law of identity.
Quoting Banno
Again, this is your terrible straw man habit. The issue with modal logic we have been discussing, is the notion that the description is the object. "Frodo has a ring" is a description, and you want to interpret it as an object. You said :
Quoting Banno
Obviously, when I say "Banno is fool", this does not necessitate the conclusion that there is an existing person called Banno.
No one yet has addressed the quote which I brought this morning, from the SEP article we are reading. On the conditions for truth, it is stated as required, that " (ii) its designated “actual world” is in fact the actual world".
Now you'll have to excuse me, I need to go get ready for Santa Clause, who must be a real existing person because people can describe him.
Nobody tell him; let him have this one
Yep. they are generally clearer because they do not involve necessary or possible properties, but propositions.
If the predicate is an empty set in some world then yes, there is no extension for that predicate in that world. Consider "spotted penguin" - there are none in the actual world but they are not impossible. But is it empty in every possible world? If so, then it's necessarily empty, and unlike the spotted penguin there can be no such thing. Consider "Four-sided triangle".
Yes, but there's a bit more. It's also intensional as it sets out the conditions under which something is a swan, not a list of the swans. I guess properly we should write x:x is white ? x is flighted ? x is a waterfowl.
And again, this line of enquiry is about kinds, not individuals. It's slightly different to what is being dealt with in the article. So consider: there are white ducks; and juvenile swans do not fly.
You think you have. You are mistaken.
In standard set theory (ZF, ZFC), the Axiom of Extensionality is that
Here, “=” is identity. There is no weaker or alternative relation intended. Sets have no identity conditions other than their members. To deny that “=” here expresses identity is to deny that sets are individuals at all. So Meta’s attempt to treat extensional equality as something other than identity is not merely philosophically optional — it is incompatible with orthodox set theory.
The law of identity is x = x. Interpreting extensional equality as identity cannot violate this law.
On the contrary, if two sets have the same members, they are the same set. This enforces identity, it does not undermine it. Meta seems to think that because two sets can be described differently (or constructed differently), treating them as identical violates identity. That is the same representation/referent confusion diagnosed earlier. So the alleged violation does not exist.
Sets are not individuals, they are ideas. The unity required for "individual" is simply assumed by the subject, in the case of a set. That's why I criticized your use of "..." in your description of a set. That indicates the lack of a clearly defined boundary, required for a unit. And what about the empty set? What kind of individual is composed of nothing? Sets are not in any way objective individuals. They may amount to objective ideas, in the sense of inter-subjective objectivity, but the unity required for "individual" is simply not there.
That's the reason for Aristotle's law of identity, to hold a separation between real individuals (substance), and ideas, which were held by Platonists to be objects, or individuals. The separation was intended to resist the sophistry which was derived from treating ideas as if they are real existing things, the sophistry which you displayed with your example of Frodo.
Pretty straightforward. It's a distinction that caused much confusion historically. It dissipates in modal logic, with a small ghost that might be summarised in terms of the scope of the modal operator. perhaps the main issue is that it was unclear exactly what the de dicto/de re distinction was. See The De Re/De Dicto Distinction for more on the history here. Stealing Quine's example from there, "Ralph believes that someone is a spy" is ambiguous between Ralph's believing that there are spies, and Ralph's believing of someone that they are a spy. The first is de dicto, since Ralph's belief is about the sentence "there are spies". The second is de re, since Ralph's belief is about someone.
Very roughly, if the operator has a sentence in its scope, it's de dicto - about the sentence. If it has only a thing or its properties in its scope, its de re. More formally, in quantified modal logic:
So in our target article, "Necessarily, Algol is a dog" is de re, being about Algol, while "Necessarily, All dogs are mammals" is de dicto, being about a sentence.
The benefit of formalisation here is that it makes explicit what is going on, an improvement over older approaches to de dicto and de re.
"Necessarily, Algol is a dog" is understood as saying that, in every world in which Algol exists, Algol is a dog. It thereby presumes that Algol exists in multiple possible worlds, that is, it presumes transworld identity. Hence,
Sorry Banno, it doesn't work that way. You have to actually hang me.
I will add the following to your description of the de re/de dicto distinction.
It is mentioned in the SEP article, "the truth conditions for sentences exhibiting modality de re involve in addition a commitment to the meaningfulness of transworld identity". This, as I explained above, is supported ontologically by Platonism, and requires a violation of the law of identity. That is why the SEP says:
[quote=SEP]The subject of transworld identity has been highly contentious, even among philosophers who accept the legitimacy of talk of possible worlds. Opinions range from the view that the notion of an identity that holds between objects in distinct possible worlds is so problematic as to be unacceptable, to the view that the notion is utterly innocuous, and no more problematic than the uncontroversial claim that individuals could have existed with somewhat different properties. Matters are complicated by the fact that an important rival to ‘transworld identity’ has been proposed: David Lewis’s counterpart theory, which replaces the claim that an individual exists in more than one possible world with the claim that although each individual exists in one world only, it has counterparts in other worlds, where the counterpart relation (based on similarity) does not have the logic of identity. Thus much discussion in this area has concerned the comparative merits of the transworld identity and counterpart-theoretic accounts as interpretations, within a possible-worlds framework, of statements of what is possible and necessary for particular individuals. (Similar issues arise concerning the transworld identity of properties.)[/quote]
Does my understanding make sense?
Am I right that:
1 - An extensional definition must include everything that falls under the definition.
2 - An intensional definition must include everything that is necessary and sufficient for the definition.
On my walks, I observe the set {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}.
I am also thinking about Wittgenstein and JL Austin.
I perceive that the elements of this set have a family resemblance.
I cannot describe this family resemblance, but I can name it X, such that the family resemblance between the elements of the set is X.
If I were the King, I could make it a law of the land such that X was henceforth given the name “swanness”, along the lines of a JL Austin performative utterance. Then “swanness” becomes the official name of the family resemblance between the elements of the set {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}
Note that “swanness” does not refer to the elements of the set {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}, but refers to the family resemblance between the elements of the set {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}.
As regards an intensional definition, the intensional definition of “swanness” is the family resemblance between the elements of the set {this swan in Hyde Park, that swan on the Thames, those swans on the Serpentine}.
Therefore:
1 - On the one hand, I know in my mind that there is a family resemblance. The public word for this can be “swanness”, which I can use in my daily life.
2 - On the other hand, even though I know in my mind that there is a family resemblance, I cannot put my knowledge into words.
3 - Therefore, I can use words such as “swanness” in a public language because I know what “swanness” means, even though I cannot put my knowledge of what “swanness” means into words.
It seems to me, that the quote supports what I've been arguing very well.
[quote=SEP]"The subject of transworld identity has been highly contentious, even among philosophers who accept the legitimacy of talk of possible worlds."[/quote]
Possible worlds semantics is a piece of Platonist ontology. And, Platonist ontology violates the law of identity. So, many philosophers do not accept the legitimacy of "possible worlds".
Further, the quote indicates that even among those philosophers who accept the Platonist "possible worlds", many believe that extending the violation of the law of identity from the identity handed to possible worlds , to the "transworld identity" of the individuals within, is so problematic as to be unacceptable.
In other words, once we allow the initial violation of the law of identity, by accepting Platonism, we open a pandora's box of unacceptability. Each step we take within this domain, where imaginary things have identity, takes us further and further from the domain of demonstration. So the things we say become more and more controversial because they cannot be demonstrated. This is very important and significant because the objectivity of logic is derived from convention, agreement, inter-subjectivity. Therefore unacceptability is the most detrimental and destructive thing to logic, leaving it as waste. For a logician to forge ahead with principles which have been declared by philosophers to be unacceptable, is a mistaken venture, a waste of time.
So except for RussellA's last question here, we're ready to move on to section 2, right?
2. Three Philosophical Conceptions of Possible Worlds
Transworld identity can be accounted for via haecceity: the notion that there is something unanalyzable and immaterial that makes you YOU. It's comparable to a soul. This doesn't depend on Platonism; but it does depend on immaterialism.
My current understanding taken from various sources:
Suppose in possible world 5 “pigs cannot fly” and in accessible possible world 6 “pigs can fly”.
Modal languages using rigid designators
There are modal languages using rigid designators, such as Modal Logic K, Kripke’s standard modal logic.
These reference the same individual in all possible worlds, in that Aristotle is Aristotle necessarily.
These exhibit de re modality because it is about the modality of the thing. For example, all cyclists are necessarily bipedalists. All swans are necessarily white. All pigs necessarily cannot fly.
In Naming and Necessity Kripke showed that names are rigid designators. Therefore the pig in different possible worlds is the same pig. It is necessarily the same pig, it has the same intension, it has the same meaning and it is the same thing. It may be that possible world 5 is the Earth where pigs cannot fly, and possible world 6 may be Mars where there a low gravity allowing pigs to fly.
Modal languages using non-rigid designators
There are also modal languages using non-rigid designators, such as Epistemic Logic (knowledge and belief) and Temporal Logic.
These can model context dependent references, such that “the current president” can change across possible worlds, in that George Washington was the president accidentally. In other worlds he could have been a soldier.
These exhibit de dicto modality because they are about the modality of the proposition. For example, it is necessary that all cyclists are bipedalists. It is necessary that all swans are white. It is necessary that all pigs cannot fly.
Russell in his 1905 essay On Denoting developed his theory of descriptions. Therefore, what a pig is is determined by its context within the world it exists. It could be that in possible world 5 a pig = {domesticated, omnivorous, mammal, cannot fly} and a pig in possible world 6 = {domesticated, omnivorous, mammal, can fly}.
Therefore, the thing that belongs to the predicate, such as “the pig”, can change dependent on which system of modal logic is used, one with rigid designators or one without.
:up:
Quoting RussellA
So it may be that there are no rigid designators across possible worlds. In that case, we may appear to have adopted Lewis' counterpart account, wherein a pig named "Babe" in PW 5 (possible world 5) is different, but similar to, Babe in PW 6. Point is, if there are not rigid designators, then we are dealing with different "entities" across worlds. These entities can have different predicates, but like I said, the things that belong to those predicates, per each PW, will not change. If pigs can fly in PW 6, then the version of Babe that exists in PW 6 will belong to the predicate "can fly" in that PW.
A statement about pigs generally spoken of would be de dicto. A statement about this or that pig would be de re.
There is a related issue that cuts through this: contingentarianism vs necessatarianism. Contingency entails the assumption that some counterfactuals could have been actual. That may be an unwarranted assumption. Here's an excerpt from Amy Karofsky's "A Case for Necessitarianism":
[I]"One of the most common ways to justify the belief that contingentarianism is true is by appeal to intuition …Granted, most philosophers do share the intuition that things could have been otherwise. However the mere fact that most philosophers think that things could have been different is not adequate proof that there really are ways things could have been. In fact, what may seem to be a belief about a (so-called) unactualized possibility, when carefully examined, could actually turn out to be a mere modal illusion in the sense that it is confused and incomplete thinking and more akin to a figment of the imagination than to a genuine belief.
"Michael Jubien wrote that it is intuitive and evident from ordinary thinking that there is genuine contingency in the world…'We ordinarily think of an object could have been elsewhere because we think that our physical forces acting upon it might have been different. We think a sudden gust of wind might have altered the path of a bird in flight.'
"According to Jubien, we ordinarily think that the direction of a bird’s flight is contingent because we think that the causal series that involves the physical forces could have been different; we think that a sudden gust of wind could have altered the causal series that resulted in the bird’s path. [But] the mere fact that some people think that physical forces can be different is not adequate justification for the claim that the physical forces [i.e. those in effect in a particular instance] can be different.
"Moreover, it is not even evident that we do think the way Jubien thinks we do…We might and sometimes do think that because some actual birds paths are affected by gusts of wind, it is possible that a gust of wind could affect any bird’s path. But this type of reasoning commits the existential quantification, possible instantiation fallacy. The fact that some bird’s paths are affected by wind does not entail that the direction of any particular bird’s path is contingent; it merely indicates that the actual paths of some actual birds are affected by wind. We might and sometimes do think that this bird’s path can be affected by a gust of wind because being a bird’s path is compatible with being affected by a gust of wind. But…the compatibility of abstract properties does not prove that the instantiation of a particular property is contingent. Thus, even if we think that the abstract properties are compatible, that does not mean that we think that the particular property instances are contingently instantiated. And if we do think so, our belief remains unjustified because it presupposes contingentarianism."[/i]
She provides a number of examples from the literature wherein philosophers describe events that they claim describe "obvious" cases of contingency (such as a throw of the dice, and deliberative decisions based on future "contingencies"), but points out that these reflect merely epistemic, not metaphysical possibilities. She also reviews some claims about past contingencies, all of which entail circular reasoning: we assume things "could" have been different, and then creatively imagine differences - without actually analyzing the factors that would need to differ in order for the alleged non-actualized possibility to have obtained:
[I]"in general, any contention that an imagined situation is a consideration of a possible, but unactual state of affairs presupposes that what does not happen can, and any suggestion that thinking about the past is an encounter with an unrealized possibility rests upon the assumption that actual past events could have failed to have occurred.[/i]"
In possible world 5 - “Babe is a pig and pigs cannot fly”
In possible world 6 - “Babe is a pig and pigs can fly”
Assuming rigid designators, then as I understand it is true that “These entities can have different predicate, but…………………the things that belong to those predicates, per each PW, will not change”. This means that Aristotle is necessarily Aristotle in all possible worlds, and Babe is necessarily Babe in all possible worlds.
But you are saying, given non-rigid designators, it is also true that “These entities can have different predicate, but…………………the things that belong to those predicates, per each PW, will not change”. This also means that Aristotle is necessarily Aristotle in all possible worlds and Babe is necessarily Babe in all possible worlds.
But then how is modal logic using non-rigid designators different to modal logic using rigid designators?
Rigid designation
The person in PW 5 predicated by “is a man named Aristotle” is the same person as the person in PW 6 predicated by “is a man named Aristotle”.
Non-rigid designation
I agree that the person in PW 5 predicated by “is a man named Aristotle” Is a different person to the person in PW 6 predicated by “is a man named Aristotle”
I agree that the person in PW 5 remains the same person within PW 5.
Correct.
We are talking about naming a sample of liquid. Why we name a liquid is not because it identifies some essence in all possible worlds. For example, it would be wrong to say "0.00001 M NaOH is water", or "0.00001 M NaOH is H2O" This is the naming convention scientists use to describe the composition of the solution labeled "0.00001 M NaOH." The information the name provides tells the chemists that the solution is a base and the pH the solution is approximately 9. The term "water" would not convey this information because it is scientifically too vague. The chemist would prepare this solution with purified water, but this would demonstrate that 0.00001 M NaOH is not purified water. One difference, the pH would be different in both solutions, indicating different levels of hydroxide ions. Also, the solution would have the relatively large concentration of sodium ions. Simply put, 0.00001 M NaOH is not identical to purified water. However, in an entirely different context, you can go to the store and buy yourself a bottle of "Alkaline Water", which typically has a pH of 9. In this case, the seller is using the name "Alkaline water" to indicate that this is something you can drink."
So, if a read Kripke correctly, once we baptized that solution of "0.00001 M NaOH", it necessarily refers to what is the underlying chemical structure in every possible world. However, equally, if that same solution is baptized as "water", it necessary refers to what is the underlying chemical structure in every possible world. The underlying chemical structure referred to in 0.00001 M NaOH would be a covalent bonds with H20 molecule as well as the hydrogen bonding occurring between the H2O and hydroxide ions, and ion-dipole interaction between h2o and sodium ion. The underlying chemical structure for the solution called "water", according to Kripke, would be just H2O molecules. The very same solution with two completely different essences called out in every possible world.
There is a simple way out of this conundrum. First, scientific statements are about composition, not identity. Two, sometimes in language we use vague terms like "water" in a variety of ways to serve purposes other than scientifically precise ways.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool determinist, by which I mean it's embedded in the way I see the world, morality, the way I assess my own past. Fate, basically. But that doesn't interfere with my understanding of modal logic.
It comes up in our recent discussion about disability. Some identify a disability as an essential feature of a person, and so to judge the lack of capability is to judge the person. The alternative is to think about disability as contingent. It's still the same person, with or without a particular set of challenges. So I think in terms of fate, but also distinguish between what's at the core of a person, the subject (so to speak), and the orbiting circumstances.
I'm aware that Heidegger would object to separating the two out in that way. After all, it's two sides of one coin. But Heidegger failed to see that we don't live our lives in that realm of unity. The intimate experience of life is infinite space in between.
So on to the distinction between transworld identity and counterpart theory.
These are alternate ways of treating individuals in the logic so far discussed. Transworld identity is the more widely accepted, and is the view discussed in Naming and Necessity. It is the view that the domains of possible world overlap, so that more than one possible world can share a given domain. So for example perhaps in w? we have D={a,b,c,d} and in w? D={a,b,c,d} but the interpretations may differ in each, so f(a) at w? but ~f(a) at w?; and indeed, at w? perhaps D={b,c,d} and a does not exist at all. So the Algol in w? and w? will be the very same Algol, but Algol might not exist at w?.
Counterpart theory is the main rival to this, and was developed in the main by the brilliant contrarian David Lewis. In this account, the domains of possible worlds are distinct, either different individuals. We have perhaps w? with D={a,b,c,d} and in w? D={a',b',c',d'}, where a' is an individual that has maximally similar properties to a. (This idea of "maximal similarity" is, broadly, formally defined). a' is the counterpart of a in w?. SO Algol exists in w?, but not in w?, were instead we find instead a maximally equivalent counterpart, Algol'
Seeing as how Meta is hanging around, I'll point out that Lewis accepts the structure of modal logic and possible worlds. This is in contrast to Meta's rejection of that logic. Lewis accepts possible worlds as legitimate semantic tools, quantified modal logic, and a functional replacement for transworld identity based on counterpart relations, along with the same formal machinery. The difference is that in Kripke transworld identity is understood as the very same individual existing in other possible worlds, while for Lewis transworld identity is understood as between maximally similar individuals. Meta, by contrast, repeatedly rejects or undermines the semantic framework itself.
This leads us into the next section.
Yes, if one is happy with "an unanalysable non-qualitative property that is necessary and sufficient for its being the individual that it is".
On these fora I've repeatedly asked various advocates of this view for a clear account of how this might work, to no avail.
So I remain unimpressed.
Stumpies on bikes:
"How to get started" because that's the hard part. :wink:
Do you agree?
Something like that. But we still think in terms of possibility.
Kripke uses rigid designation in transworld identity. Lewis uses counterparts and does not need rigid designation.
For my part, and as I've presented previously, it seems to me that that "Nixon might not have won the 1972 election" is about Nixon. Lewis would say that it is about Nixon's counterpart. I find that unacceptable.
We can entertain counterfactuals as "what-ifs", but they aren't truly possible - unless they pertain to future choices we may make (there's actually only one possible future, but we're ignorant of it, and our choice-making contributes to it). It is not truly possible for Germany to have won WWII, or for Nixon to have lost his 1968 or 1972 elections.
The apparent problem for and determinism can to a large extent be handled by accessibility. There are possible worlds that are logically accessible. Within those worlds are a subgroup that are metaphysically accessible. And in turn, within those worlds, a sub gorup that are physically accessible.
See The Epistemology of Modality
Haecceity in itself could not account for transworld identity, because haecceity describes an individual being what it is, in all its uniqueness. Haecceity is the identity of the individual in all of its uniqueness. Therefore each individual would have a unique haecceity, and unique identity in each possible world.
If we say that a thing's haecceity is its essential properties, and this provides for transworld identity, as your referred article seems to imply, then we don't have a thing anymore, no de re, just Platonism, ideas, things said.
Quoting Relativist
To understand how "things could have been otherwise" requires a rigorous ontology of time. Most philosophers don't bother with that, so most philosophers really do not understand what it means to say "things could have been otherwise". Because they do not understand it, they just make things up, like possible worlds.
It's what a thing has that makes it what it is.
So, what is it that a thing has that makes it what it is?
Well, Haecceity, obviously.
And... what's Haecceity...?
And so on.
Concretism, or modal realism, looks at the logic and wants to say that all possible worlds are metaphysically on the same footing. That possible worlds are metaphysically the same as the actual world. So there is a world in which Algol is not one of John's pets. And that world is as real as the actual world in which Algol is John's pet. To maintain consistency it invokes counterpart theory and discounts rigid designation.
Abstractism looks at the logic and says that individuals can be in other possible worlds, and so invokes rigid designation - proper names refer to the very same thing in multiple possible worlds. These worlds are not physically real, but are abstacta of on sort or another.
Combinatorialism looks at the logic and sees the various possible worlds as constructed by arranging the various individuals in different ways.
Of course, there are details to be considered in each.
I love learning new words and had to look that one up.
"a non-qualitative property responsible for a substance’s individuation and identity."
Of the three words associated with it - "thisness" - "suchness" - whatness" - I would say humans, in their individuality, comes most closely to "suchness."
As a science fiction fan, the idea of modal realism doesn't seem all that strange. Protagonists are forever waking up in the wrong world, with much drama resulting. But on what basis do I accept the idea? According to Lewis, in spite of it's being ontological inflation, it's the simplest explanation for the way we think about modality. I think I agree with this.
No. As described in the article I had linked to (here again), haecceity is just a bare identity, not decomposible into a set of one or more things or properties. It is essence, but not comparable to other theories of essence, except for contrasting it.
Under this theory, your haecceity could have been actualized in King Charles, a dog, an amoeba or a quark.
As an ontological theory, I think it's ridiculous. It seems to be arrived at by process of elimination: take away each of your non-essential parts and properties, and what's left? I say, nothing. But someone committed to transworld identity say that haecceity is what's left.
The SEP article was written by Penelope Mackie. I read her book "How Things Might Have Been". She does a good analysis of the problems with essences, and distills it down to this being the inly viable form- iff one is willing to accept it. I don't know if she really believes it, or if it's just a foil.
But haecceity then cannot account for transworld identity. Transworld identity must allow that the same thing has different properties at the same time, is different in different worlds. The transworld thing would require multiple haecceities, because haecceity includes all the unique properties of the thing. I actually couldn't understand how the proposal works. They speak about haecceity as if it is traditional "haecceity", the unique identity of an individual, but then they also say it's like an essence, which appears Platonic. If you could explain it to me in a way which makes sense, I'd appreciate it.
Quoting Relativist
The concept of haecceity is the opposite of this though. It includes each and every property which makes an individual the unique thing it is, including both essential and accidental properties, as well as external, spatial temporal positioning.
If you take away all properties, then what's left is matter, potential. But it would be the same matter for everyone and everything, and nothing would distinguish one from another.
Read literally, what you've written makes no sense. I think what you trying to say that IF there is transworld identity, then an object can have the same identity in 2 different worlds, despite having a different set of properties in each world. I agree that is what transworld identity means.
Haeccety (if it exists) is a non-qualitative, non-analyzable property. It is the one and only necessary and sufficient property that an identity has. So if haeccetism is true, then all the qualitative properties are superfluous to the identity. In comparing two possible worlds, the object could be qualitatively entirely different between the worlds - but it would be the same object (same identity) as long as the particular haeccety is present.
I am correcting what I said before: I had conflated haeccity with bare identity. They are very similar, but subtly different.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I refer you to the article's definition of haeccitty:
[I]The view that an individual’s transworld identity is ‘bare’ is sometimes described as the view that its identity consists in its possession of a ‘haecceity’ or ‘thisness’: an unanalysable non-qualitative property that is necessary and sufficient for its being the individual that it is.[/i]
Seems to me the epitome of philosophical reification.
Just a thought, but Lewis’s approach seems very similar to that of Direct Realism.
Lewis argues that because the concept of concrete possible worlds explains so much and so economically, this overcomes any common sense objections we may have to it.
Similarly for the Direct Realist, who argues that the tables and chairs we perceive are ontologically real, rather than indirect representations, because this explains so much and so economically.
True, although isn't there an extra conundrum with direct realism: that if it's true, then it must be false (by virtue of what we observe about how the senses work).
Very good. But of course, rejecting one proposal does not resolve the problem of transworld identity. Nor does it make any other proposal more reasonable. The obvious fact is that "possible worlds" is a faulty interpretation of "possibility" based in a Platonism which violates the law of identity. Therefore the problem will never be resolved, even if "possible worlds" remains very useful for sophistry.
Quoting Relativist
OK, I think I see what you are saying. I understood "haecceity" as what makes a unique thing the unique thing which it is. And that is somewhat correct, but I understood this to be a compilation of all the thing's distinct properties. You are proposing that it is something distinct form all of the qualitative properties, a special sort of property which gives a thing its uniqueness. Isn't this sort of contradictory? How could there be a non-qualitative property? It's like the thing has a property which is not a property. Or is it a property which we could never know because we know things by their qualitative properties?
Nevertheless, I think the problem I mentioned remains. This is similar to if we say that a thing's matter is what provides for its identity, uniqueness, or haecceity. Matter is distinctly not a qualitative property, it is some sort of underlying substance. We say that each thing is composed of matter, and we say that it's a fact that this matter in this thing is unique, and not the same as that matter in that thing, which ultimately gives a thing its uniqueness, individual identity, or haecceity.
Now, the problem is that "matter" itself is just a concept. it is the most universal concept because we say that every thing has matter, so it does not provide any principle for us to distinguish one thing form another. At the level of matter, everything is the same, because we use properties to distinguish one thing from another, and at that level, everything is just "matter". So "matter" and "haecceity" are both useless as principles of identity. The proposition that "matter" itself, without any form, or that "heaccceity", is what accounts for a thing's identity, is like saying that a thing is unidentifiable.
Quoting Relativist
This is a good example of the problem I mentioned above. It's basically the problem of infinite possibility. You say "the object could be qualitatively entirely different between the worlds". Well, so could every object. So there is nothing then to distinguish one object from another, between worlds. We claim there is something, "haecceity", but we can't know it. Then we are left with arbitrarily, or subjectively assigning names to bundles of properties.
We start with the opposite of bundle theory, and end up being the very same as bundle theory. We start with the assertion that there is an underlying substance, matter or haecceity, which makes a thing the thing it is. Then we realize it is impossible for us to know this underlying substance, from the way it is defined, as other than a property, so it gets left as useless to our knowledge. Therefore within our epistemology, the thing becomes a bundle of properties without any underlying substance. Haecceity, as defined, cannot serve its purpose.
Quoting RussellA
Lewis' way, of concrete possible worlds, appears to be the only way to escape Platonism and idealism in general, once the "possible worlds" model is accepted. But it's not a real escape. The problem being that the possible worlds model produces a separation between the possible worlds and the actual ontological world. Then one has to be selected as the real. Once the possible worlds are selected as the real, we get multiverses, etc.. The only true escape is to reject "possible worlds" as a faulty interpretation of possibility.
You've taught me another new word, and I thank you for that - "reification" -
"treating an abstract idea as if it were a concrete, real thing."
My first question is this - just because something is not concrete, does it follow that it cannot be real?
I'm looking at this through the lens of my biology background - in which all living things, and all parts of living things, are described in terms of structure and function, and structure complements function.
So, if we consider the structure of the human brain, its function is to produce a "mind." And the "haecceity" - or the "thisness" of each individual person results from the mental output of the mind. The "mind" is not a concrete thing, but it's real. Indeed, it produces the only reality we know.
Since we each one of us have our individual take on reality, the mind is the set of our "thisness" - or our haecceity.
Or have I misunderstood in limiting "haecceity" to the concept of consciousness?
As I understand it, for Lewis, it is not necessary to select one of the possible worlds as real, as all possible worlds are as real as each other. All possible worlds are real concrete worlds, actual ontological worlds.
As an analogy, the world you live in is more than likely very different to the world I live in (the people you know, the history of your country, the local climate, the geography, the architecture), but it would be wrong to say that your world is more real than my world.
The people engaging in the possible world analysis know which object they are referring to: it's a footballer in one world, a cockroach in the other. So "infinite possibility" is the point: possible world analysis of an object has no bounds. Of course, this means there are no ontological cross-world identities. (This doesn't prevent us from entertaining fictional possible worlds).
Consideration of haeccitism establishes an extreme: no qualitative properties are necessary for holding a particular identity (albeit it requires the questionable assumption that identity is associated with a non-qualitative property).
The opposite extreme: 100% of an objects properties (all of which are qualitative) at time t1 are necessary and sufficient for being that object at t1. This is my view.
Is there a viable alternative between the extremes? I don't think so.
Even though quarks cannot be directly observed through the senses, they are accepted as being real because they explain so much and so economically.
Lewis is also saying that his theory, even if not empirically verifiable, because it is so elegant and explanatory should not be dismissed because it initially seems to be against common sense.
That bit has me intrigued. A world is a unit such that none of its parts are not "spatiotemporally related to anything that is not also one of its parts". No modality is involved in that definition... at least explicitly. Something is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds. That quantification, for Lewis, is just over ordinary objects inhabiting other worlds. Modality is for Lewis just quantification. It means “true everywhere” rather than “could not have been otherwise”. So Modality is reduced to quantification.
In other systems, modality remains primitive, unreduced.
"The problem of transworld identity" is a result of your misunderstanding. Try to follow this.
Kripke and I would say that "What if Nixon didn't win the 1972 election?" is a question about Nixon. Those who accept haecceity might say that it was not a question about Nixon, but about Nixon's haecceity, which makes Nixon, Nixon, and not some other thing. Do we have one thing or two here?
So
Quoting Questioner
Do we have one thing, Nixon, or two things, Nixon and that-which-makes-Nixon-what-he-is-and-not-another-thing?
I'll opt for one thing, not two.
And that's the issue with reification - it multiplies entities beyond necessity.
Now to be sure, Occam's principle is more an aesthetic than a logical principle, but I think it applies here. I can't see what explanatory value there is in invoking haecceity. Rather, it shifts whatever issue there might be along one step, giving the mere illusion of an answer.
I don't see that haecceity is needed at all to explain transworld identity. Indeed, i have trouble seeing that there is an issue here. We ask "What if Prince Philip had passed before his mother?" and understand that this is about sentences about Prince Philip and Queen Elisabeth, and we do that without the need for the philosophical baggage of haecceity.
Of course, we can entertain any conceivable "what-if?", but entertaining it does not entail that it was truly possible.
Trans-world identity is closely related to identity over time: what is it that makes any object the SAME object from one day to the next? Is there a subset of the object's properties that are necessary and sufficient? Imagine a big rock that is eroding over time: is it the same rock when it's 5 kg? 2 kg? 1 gram?
Similarly, with people: are you the same person as the infant that grew and developed into you? We naturally assume so, but analyze it: what makes both of them the same person? DNA mutates over time; your dimensions change; you gain memories, physical scars, etc. There's no set of necessary and sufficient properties that comprise the essence* of you. Rather: you have a causal relation with each prior version of you: Thursday-you is a material cause of Friday-you. There's also a continual piling on of new memories.
This is how I suggest we have an identity over time- but it means these hypothetical thought experiments are not really referring to the same identity. Actual Queen Elisabeth had a very specific history, and it is that history that strictly defines her identity.
There's also a matter of how the counterfactual situation would have come about: Elisabeth and Philip died when they did for some very specific reasons. So for the counterfactual to be truly possible, one or more of those reasons would have to have differed. For it to be truly possible, there needs to have been some contingent factors. If determinism is true, then there is no contingency.
_________
*haeccity, if it exists, would be the essence of a identity.
I wonder if you follow this thread from the start.
The word "truly" should fill a philosopher with dread. The whole of the logic set out here is exactly about what is in truth possible. What we are doing here is using Tarski's approach to truth in order to set out a coherent consistent way of talking about modality. "Truth" is built in to the very structure by it's reliance on Tarski's system.
Temporal logic takes possible world semantics and applies it in a temporal context. It uses the very same basis that we have here. The usual order of operation is to work out what we're doing in the modal logic and then to treat temporal logic as a subclass. There is SEP articles on this topic that will explain this, but essentially what they do is set up rules of access between past present and future.
Quoting Relativist
In Kripke's system, and in the example we just gave, Prince Charles is imposed, fixed by the act of rigidly designation, and it's this very supposition that sets out that the Prince Charles in the alternative possible world is exactly the same Prince Charles as is in the actual world.
In Lewis' system, there is an algorithm to decide which person in some other possible world is the counterpart of Prince Charles.
Transworld identity or counterpart theory is not discovered by the model, it is presupposed by the interpretation function. This is a central feature of the logic we have been studying, and accepted by both Kripke and Lewis. Both Kripke and Lewis agree on this point; they diverge only in how identity should be metaphysically understood. The difference is in whether that identity is set by rigid designation or by counterpart theory.
Just to be clear, there is a difference between Kripke's semantics on the one hand, and which is accepted by both Kripke and Lewis, and pretty much everyone else except Meta; and the further, metaphysical approach taken differently in Naming and Necessity and in Lewis' work. The logic is shared. The metaphysics differs.
Kripke (Naming and Necessity):
Lewis (Modal Realism / counterpart theory):
Shared Logic / Semantics
Summarised by ChatGPT
I would say that the function (the mind) cannot be separated from the structure (the brain) so we have one thing, not two things. It's not a dualism.
I would also say that of the billions of brains that have ever existed, no two were structurally identical, so the mental output is unique to each individual.
A rigid designator refers to a specific individual in this world: he has a specific physical composition at each temporal point of his existence, a specific history, and a set of relations to every other object in the universe. If we mentally place the individual in another environment, some of those relations are dropped. Since the world is different, he may have a different history - this may result in differences in his physical structure, and his memories. The more different the world, the more differences from the real world.
So it is never the case that it is "exactly the same individual" because there are necessarily differences. You have to designate what properties and relations make it "the same".
Quoting Banno
Counterparts do not have the same identity as the person being discussed. It's perfectly fine to reference counterparts- individuals with similarities to the one referenced.
Quoting Banno
Which makes it fine for an intellectual exercise, but it does not establish possibilia: that the "possible world" being analyzed is possible.
What I mean by "possible" is that it is metaphysically possible: the "possible" world would have been the actual world, had certain continencies occurred. Just because we can conceptualize a world does not imply it was metaphysically possible.
Which do you think is closer to approximating the way we really think about modality?
A rigid designator refers to the very same individual in every world in which it exists.
This, pretty much regardless of the properties of that individual. That's the point.
Here's the logic common to rigid designators and counterparts. We have in possible world semantics the definition that ?f(a) if true will be true in all possible worlds. That's the logic. ?f(a) is true at a world w iff f(a) is true at all worlds accessible from w.
Now what, exactly, does "a" represent? The interpretation must supply a rule that tells us how the denotation of “a” at w? figures in the evaluation of f(a) at w?.
So we have two interpretations. For Kripke, "a" is a name that refers to the very same individual in every world in which it exists. It rigidly designates that individual, regardless of whatever predicates it might have - regardless of if it satisfies "f" or not.
For Lewis, in any possible world w? there may be an individual which is maximally similar to "a" is w. That's the individual to which "a" refers in w?.
The second is closer to my way of thinking, for the reasons I gave - "Banno might not have answered your post" is a sentence about me, not a sentence about some other bloke in some other world who just happens to be similar to me in certain ways.
I find that argument pretty convincing. So Kripke, not Lewis.
Others find it less convincing.
I'm not sure how popular Lewis' view is. It's kind of nutty.
Under my view of individual identity, that is logically impossible.
My view is that 100% of an individual's properties (including intrinsic properties and relations to other objects) at each point in time, are necessary to being that individual.
This is what you aren't addressing.
Then I'm afraid you have misunderstood something.
You can disagree with my definition, but then you need to provide your own.
Yeah, but technically very clever. It explains the modal operators, rather than taking them as fundamental. They are just a broader quantification across the worlds. It's very neat. But yes, quite mad.
Not me, Kripke. Again, that it is the same individual in some way is inherent in the definition of possibility and necessity: fa is necessarily true if a is f in every possible world in which it occurs.
If a is going to be f in every possible world, then we have to be able to talk about a in every possible world. How do we do that?
Simple answer: "a" refers to a in every possible world that includes a. More devious answer: "a" refers to a different but corresponding individual in each world.
:lol:
So his theory of possible worlds is contingent upon essentialism being true. It falls apart if essentialism is false. My position has been that it is false. Can you defend essentialism?
Yes that's exactly the problem. What we know as the independent, physical world, source of empirical observations, can no longer be accepted as such. It gets barred off as a sort of unreal illusion, and what we're left with is an extreme idealism where the ideas (possible worlds) are the reality. Something like this is necessary to fulfill the second truth condition listed by the SEP:
To fulfill the criteria for "truth", the actual world, within the possible worlds model, as one of the possible worlds, must "in fact" be the actual world. This is the issue @Banno and I debated endlessly in the other thread. The position that Banno insisted on, which I insisted is clearly false, is that the actual must be possible. This means that the actual world (and this is the factual "actual world") must be a possible world. Banno tried to dismiss this as an actual world which is distinct from the metaphysically actual world. But this means that the metaphysically actual world is not the true actual world, leaving the source of empirical observations as some sort of illusion.
Of course this creates a unique problem. We really only have empirical observations to base our stipulation of "actual world" on, in the modal model. But this realm of empirical observations is illusory, as it cannot be "the actual world". The actual world has to be one of the possible worlds. Then the use of empirical observations to produce "the actual world" in the model, is not justifiable. Then we have a whole number of concrete possible worlds, one of which is designated "the actual world" and is in fact the actual world by that stipulation, but the designation is unjustifiable.
Quoting Relativist
Infinite possibility is the problem. Look at the first truth condition listed by the SEP:
Since possibilities can be boundless, any set of possible worlds which we produce can never be "in fact the set of all possible worlds". And this is where the Platonist presumption becomes very clear. The possible worlds we present, are really ideas which we produce. But it is implied that there is an independent set of all possible worlds.
So this is precisely the problem with Platonism. We assume the existence of independent ideas, independent truths. But then for us to properly have truth, the ideas which we have, must be the very same as the independent ideas. This is impossible for us, and the impossibility manifests as this issue with infinity.
Quoting Relativist
That is my view too, and I think it is the common understanding of "numerical identity", which is what the law of identity deals with. The issue I find is that ultimately, even this fails. We come to realize that it is impossible for us human beings, with our limited capacities, to completely understand all of an object's properties at t1. As devoted philosophers though, we want to know why we cannot understand all of a thing's properties at a specific time. Then we come to realize that the reason is that there is no such thing as t1, because time is always passing at any specified time. Therefore at any specified time, t1, there is actually duration, change is actively occurring. So "100% of an objects properties" doesn't quite fulfill "necessary and sufficient for being that object", because some parts are actively changing and those aspects of the thing cannot be described as properties.
As Aristotle pointed out, the parts which are changing defy the fundamental laws of logic, Because the object must either violate the law of noncontradiction (has and has not the property which is becoming), or violate the law of excluded middle (neither has nor has not that property). Aristotle demonstrated that what becoming, or change is, is fundamentally incompatible with "properties" of being. So properties are understood as form, and he proposed "matter" as potential, to represent that part of a thing which is changing, as the possibility for properties. From this perspective, at t1 (which must actually be a duration), an object consists of properties (form), but knowing all the properties will not produce a complete knowledge of the object, because the representation of t1 as a stopped point in time, cannot be true. Time is always passing, so a point in time, as t1, is a false representation which would properly be represented as a duration of time. In that duration of time change is occurring, and so we need to include "matter" as the potential, or the possibility for properties.
Quoting Banno
I explained the fault with this way of thinking explicitly, when we discussed "the circumstances" under which I was the fellow who won the lottery. Your statement is not about Nixon. Nixon won. Therefore to talk about a person who did not win is not to talk about Nixon. That's plain and simple.
To entertain the idea of NIxon not winning, is to think of different circumstances, just like if I was to think of myself as having won the lottery would be to think of different circumstances. Therefore "what if Nixon didn't win the 1973 election?" is clearly not a question about Nixon. It is a question about the circumstances. The question asks how would the circumstances be different if it had been the case that Nixon had not won. This is clear because you place "Nixon" within that context of the 1972 election, and you make a question about changing the context.
The implication is that there is only one possible world: the actual one. Do you agree?
When we conceive of (allegedly) possible worlds, we are constucting a fiction. IMO, the semantic framework can be useful for analyzing possibilities, but the exercise should not be taken too seriously.
:up:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, and this critique can be drawn out in various ways. The question of whether a first-order quantifier quantifies over imaginary entities has no real answer, and this is why modern philosophers can debate the topic ad nauseum. The underlying issue is the fact that modern philosophy is filled with metaphysical muddle. The attempt to devise a logic which leaves metaphysical questions untouched is incoherent. In the case of first-order logic this manifests with the metaphysical confusion surrounding ‘thing’ or ‘one’, which Aristotelians know to be transcendental terms but moderns confuse for category terms. The modern logician says, “For all x…,” but when asked what he actually means by ‘x’ he has no idea. He doesn’t know whether imaginary entities count, or whether theoretical entities count, or whether propositions themselves count, etc. In essence he does not know to which of the categories of being his quantifier is supposed to apply, and his presuppositions ensure that he will be unable to answer such a central question.
Yes, although in a way very different to others hereabouts. An individual's essence, for Kripke, consists in those properties that the individual has in every possible world in which it exists. Kripke does not start with a prior metaphysical theory of essences and then build modality on top of it. He starts with modal semantics (possible worlds, necessity, rigidity) and then derives essentialist claims as consequences of that framework. So the claim that “Kripke’s theory of possible worlds is contingent on essentialism being true” gets the explanatory order wrong. Essence is explained in terms of necessity, not necessity in terms of essence.
The alternative, as has been pointed out, is that for Meta the actual world is impossible.
The rest, again, mischaracterises and misunderstands modal logic.
The "explanatory order" doesn't falsify the logic: there's s logical dependency on essentialism. But go ahead and explain essence.
Again, that is the cart before the horse. For Kripke Essence is a consequence, not a beginning.
Davis Lewis in his Concretism presupposes an “actual world” that we live in and theorises about possible worlds where our counterparts live in. These possible worlds are also as “actual” as our world.
However, it is not part of his theory how we have knowledge of our “actual world”.
An Indirect Realist, such as Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, Hume and Russell, or a Phenomenologist, such as Husserl, would disagree that we can know an independent, physical world independent of empirical observations.
For the Indirect Realist and Phenomenologist, an independent, physical world is not barred off as an unreal illusion, and we are not left with an extreme idealism. The Indirect Realist is a believer in the concept of Realism, and the Phenomenonologist never doubts a reality behind the phenomena.
For Lewis’s Concretism, it is not a problem as how we know the "actual world” that we live in, as this knowledge is presupposed, and outside the scope of his theory about possible worlds.
It is also not a problem as to how we can know possible worlds, as this is a theory. In the same way what we know about quarks is a theory, something that has such explanatory power that it is axiomatically assumed to be true.
Lewis’s Concretism attempts to analyse modal operators in non-modal terms using the theory of possible worlds. These possible worlds are as real, actual and concrete as the world we actually live in. The “actual” world we live in is presupposed and the possible worlds are theoretical.
:grimace: I didn't see that coming!
A thought:
It seems that it is impossible to understand something from the inside. One has to step outside in order to understand something.
For example, language cannot be understood using language, it can only be understood using a meta-language.
Similarly, modal logic cannot be understood using modal logic. Lewis’s Concretism was attempting this, even though it seems he failed.
Therefore, what is needed is another way to understand modal logic without using modal logic.
It seem that you and @Banno had incommensurable views. He was explaining Kripke's views, and I've benefited by getting a better understanding of what those views are. But to understand K, I think you have to understand what he is proposing. I proposed earlier that we think of the description of each possible world should be thought of as a book on a shelf; then the description of the actual world can be placed on that same shelf and thought of as a possible world along with all the others. We can take any book off the shelf and think of it as the actual world. So any world can be thought of as a possible world and that same world can also be thought of as the actual world.
Think of it this way. You are being asked to set aside the world as you know it and think about a different world. One's thinking in this mode involves suspending (bracketing) one's normal beliefs and disbeliefs. So, the world in which one is performing this thought experiment is set aside. While you are experimenting, we think of that world and the goings-on in it, as real. When we switch back to normal life, the actual world, in which all those books exist and we choose to take one off the shelf becomes, again, part of our thinking.
You may be thinking that this is all just pretending, but it is something was can do. It is how fiction ("Pride and Prejudice" or "Star Wars") works. You probably know Coleridge's phrase about the suspension of disbelief and his recognition that in some ways it is special, even weird. But it is clear that we can do it.
I don't think there is much difference, though, between thinking about a different world, in which, for example pigs and horses can fly and imagining that pigs and horses can fly. Kripke seems to think not.
That's why he proposes that we treat all possibilities in this same way. So perhaps we should only think of this as a fancy way of thinking about what would have been different if Nixon had lost the election. If it works for his project, it is justified.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If possibilities can be boundless, it follows that they might not be. In that case, we can produce a set of all possible worlds. But we can define the set of all natural numbers, prove that it is infinite, and still calculate.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The distinction between an idea and what it is an idea of what is sometimes called it's object, even though it may not be an object at all in the other sense of the word, is implicit in the idea of an idea. You seem to confuse the two when you say that the possible worlds are really ideas.
To understand this, may I go back to Frodo (just for the sake of an example).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is more complicated than it may appear. An idea is defined by reference to what it is an idea of. The idea has no existence without reference to its object. It is, in that way, parasitic on its object. But in some cases, the object of an idea may not exist, as in the case of Frodo. Here, we are presented with all the descriptions that we normally use to describe something in the world, but there is no such thing in the world. So, does Frodo exist or not? He is a fictional character, and so the answer must be, No. But there is an idea of him, which is created by the stories about him. So the answer must be Yes. Classic philosophical stuff, produced in the familiar way by extending the rules of a language game into a context where standard interpretations do not work, and we must decide how to apply the rules.
What we cannot do is say that Frodo is an idea, because ideas and people are objects of different categories. So we say, for example, that Frodo subsists or some such phrase. Perhaps better is to say that he is a fictional character, which means that he exists in the mode that fictional characters exist in, which, I accept, is to say nothing. In the end, we can work with this paradox without much trouble, so we do not need to resolve the problem, but only recognize it.
:LOTR is a possible world, in some sense of possible. So this problem, and its non-solution, apply to possible worlds, as well as fictional ones.
Do we want to say that possibilities exist or are real independently of our ideas of them? It could go either way. But what we cannot say is that ideas of possibilities can exist independently of the possibilities that constitute their objects. The dependence only goes one way.
Quoting Leontiskos
I thought the point of modern-style logic was precisely to avoid metaphysical issues. Anything that is distinguishable as a distinct entity (within its category) can be substituted into the formulae, provided a suitable domain is defined for the variables. But the formal system is independent of that definition. Hence Quine's "To be is to be the value of a variable". Which doesn't solve any metaphysical problems, but then, I doubt if it was supposed to. But perhaps I've misunderstood.
We all use modal logic pretty regularly. This was just an effort to understand modal expressions extensionally. It seems to work pretty well. Obviously this kind of philosophy isn't for everybody. :grin:
There are so many different senses of "possible", and they are radically different, so I think using only one model in an attempt to understand all the different senses of "possible" would be a mistake. I believe, the big problem with "possibility" is the nature of time, and sorting out "time" is the best starting point.
At the present, looking forward in time, we have real ontological possibilities in relation to what may occur, and this affects our decisions on actions. In this case, "possible worlds" might be acceptable. If we believe in free will, rather than determinism, the possible worlds of the future can have real ontological status, as real possibilities.
At the present, looking backward in time, there is no ontological possibility in relation to what has happened. The past is fixed, and presents us with what actually is, as we understand the empirical observations which have occurred. This is why I hold a separation between what is actual and what is possible, ontologically one is the past the other the future, and for reasons very apparent from our experience, there is a significant (what I call substantial) difference between past and future.
That primary division, between what is actual and what is possible, (past and future), becomes complex in epistemology. If we look back in time to 1972, and say that it is possible that Nixon did not win the election, this is unacceptable because it contradicts what is actual. What we do in this case, is project the present back to a past time, 1972 in this case. And at the present there is ontological possibility toward the future, so we can talk about what could have happened if things had played out differently, when 1972 was the active present. This is fictional, because we cannot actually put the present back in time, to play things out differently. So this ought not be represented as "possible worlds", to distinguish it from real possible worlds looking forward in time. And we have a goof name for that "counterfactual" so we might call it counterfactual worlds.
Epistemological possibility becomes much more complicated though. We can look backward in time, and even though we assume that there is something which actually happened, we may not know what happened. So we can look at possibilities for what actually happened. This is not the same as counterfactuals because we do not know the actual. We might use "possible worlds" in this way, but notice that we cannot have "an actual world" in our representation, or else we violate the possibility of the others. And this is very similar to looking forward into the future, where there is no actual world, except in this sense we assume that there is an actual world we are trying to determine. In this case we would allow things designated as "truth" to enter into each possible world as a form of weighting.
In the case of looking forward from the present, at the possibilities for the future, we also must allow the weighting of what is judged as true. Certain activities, massive activities, like the movement of the earth provide significant weight for "truth", while tiny unruly bits of energy provide a lot of possibility.
Notice that in both cases where "possible worlds" may be appropriate, looking forward in time, being unsure of what will happen, or what to do, and looking backward in time, being unsure of exactly what happened, we must allow truth, or statements judged as true, to enter into each possible world to provide for weighting. So it is not the case that we would designate one world as the actual world, each world partakes of truth as a form of weighting to assist judgement. Each possible world has aspects within which are designated as true, and this assists us in choosing one of the worlds. The chosen world is still not the actual world, it is the chosen world.
Quoting Leontiskos
Since most philosophers are not metaphysicians, the task of the metaphysician is to sort out that muddle created by the other philosophers.
Quoting Banno
That's correct, "the actual world" refers to the real ontologically independent world, and it is impossible that we could get it into a possible worlds model. Even if we could represent the actual world with 1000% accuracy, and plug this into the model as "the actual world", that would be a representation, not the actual world.
So possible worlds semantics is stuck with the impossible situation (necessarily false), in which the designated "actual world" of the model, must in fact be the actual world. That plunges us deep into idealism where the real worlds are possible worlds, and the source of empirical observations, the supposed real independent physical world, is just an illusion because it cannot be "the actual world" because that has been subsumed by the model.
Quoting Banno
Yes, ontology freed itself from the confines of the empirical world, and the metaphysicians have a word for this, it's "Platonism" .
Quoting RussellA
OK, but then "actual" has no real meaning. The world we live in isn't distinct as "the actual world", all the possible worlds are actual worlds, and there is no point to calling the world we live in "the actual world", because it's just one of many, which are more properly called possible worlds.
Quoting RussellA
That the world I live in and provides my empirical experience is "the actual world" must be an illusion. Use of "the" implies that it is the only. But if all the other worlds are just as actual, then that it is the only is an illusion. Now this produces the age old metaphysical question of why do I experience this world, and not some other. That is very similar to what Aristotle proposed as the fundamental ontological question. Instead of why is there something rather than nothing, which he dismissed as somewhat incoherent, he asked why is there what there is rather than something else.
So this way of looking at possible worlds doesn't really resolve anything. Instead of looking at the one actual world as "the one", and asking why there is this one rather than something else, it answers that question by saying that there actually is every other possibility. But we still have the same sort of question, why am I in this world, not in one of those others.
Quoting RussellA
I think this is inconsistent with what you said above: "These possible worlds are also as “actual” as our world". If all the possible worlds are equally "actual", how could one be presupposed and the others theoretical? Doesn't this give unequal status to their actuality? But again, "actual" doesn't seem to have any meaning, so we could just flex it around.
Quoting Ludwig V
This seems to produce the same problem as Lewis. Each possible world is equally "actual". But then "actual" has no real meaning. And if I ask, why have I experienced this world rather than any other world, there is no answer for me.
Quoting Ludwig V
This is the problem. If those other possible worlds are known as fiction, and the one I live in is known as fact, then what's the point in saying that each one is fundamentally the same? Clearly we are giving one, the one we live in, a special status, so why try to dissolve that special status. The better way toward understanding is to emphasize that special status, and try to understand what it consists of. That's ontology. If some epistemology is trying to dissolve the special status, it's only being counterproductive.
Quoting Ludwig V
I know that as the distinction between an object, and a logical subject. We can take a subject, and make predications, and there is no need for an independent, physical object. If we show a relation of correspondence between the subject with its predications, and a physical object, and we say that the subject represents that object, we will judge this as truth.
There appears to a neglect of this separation between subject and object in some modern interpretations of logic. @Banno displayed this in his discussion of "Frodo". By mentioning "Frodo" as a subject, Banno claimed that it is implied that Frodo is an existing thing. But that dissolves the subject object distinction, (a subject is necessarily an object), thereby leaving the judgement of truth in Never-Neverland.
Quoting Ludwig V
It's not difficult. We just need to adhere to the subject/object distinction, which has been a rule for millennia. Why would we suddenly believe that it would be a good idea to dissolve the distinction? However, contrary to what you say, subjects are ideas. "Frodo", as a subject is an idea. Person is the predication of that subject, and we have the idea of a person. Since there is no corresponding physical person, it is a fictitious idea. "Nixon" on the other hand, as a subject (idea) has a corresponding physical person. So we can say whatever we want about "Frodo" without worrying about truth, though we ought to stay consistent with the model of the creator to avoid copywrite infringement. But in the case of "Nixon" we ought to respect the truth.
On the keyboard in front of you are several keys. The key “t” is an actual key on the keyboard. The key “k” is an actual key on the keyboard. Because there can be more than one actual thing does not make the word “actual” meaningless.
=============================================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Because there are more than one actual keys on the keyboard in front of you does not mean that each key is an illusion. We can also ask the question, when you are pressing the actual “t” key why are you not pressing the actual “k” key instead. One answer is that you can only press one key at a time. Not a metaphysical problem but just the nature of time.
Similarly, because there are more than one actual possible worlds does not mean that each actual possible world is an illusion. We can also ask the question, when you are looking at actual possible world 5 why are you not looking at actual possible world 9. One answer is that you can only look at one actual possible world at a time. Not a metaphysical problem but just the nature of time.
====================================================================Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
For Lewis and Concretism, we know the actual world we live in and theorise that other possible worlds are also actual.
It is true that there is an unequal status in that we inhabit one of these worlds and theorise about the others, but there is no unequal status in that all these worlds are actual
The reasoning is inescapably circular!
It starts with the assumption an object is the same object in a (non-actual) possible world (it has a trans-world identity) and then conclude that the object must have an essence that accounts for it being the same object.
What you fail to grasp is that trans-world identity is controversial. Kripke does not solve the contoversy- he just alligns to one side of it.
I read Naming and Necessity some years ago. Later, I read Mackie's How Things Might Have Been*. The latter was written after Kripke's work; she references Kripke, Lewis, Plantinga, and others - and demonstrates the problems I have been relating to you. Responding, "but Kripke said...." is not a refutation.
*Mackie also wrote the SEP article on Transworld identity. The article summarizes the arguments in her book. I recommend you read it.
H'm. I thought @Banno was only aiming to explain Kripke's system as being the one that is most widely accepted in the relevant discipline.
Quoting Relativist
That's one of the reasons I can't accept the possible worlds device as anything but a way of making a formal logical system for possibility and necessity. Kripke sweeps away all the philosophical problems by inventing rigid designation.
We seem to be on similar tracks, so far. But I'll expand on this.
If determinism is true, then there is actually only one future possibility: the actual world that will unfold to us. Of course, we're ignorant of the future (except to the degree that we can apply the laws of physics). On the basis of this ignorance, we can discuss epistemic possibilities- as far as I know X (a future event) is possible.
As you said, if (libertarian) free will exists, then there are multiple (metaphysically) possibly futures. Further, quantum indeterminacy establishes multiple (physically) possible futures.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
However, if determinism is not true then there were past contingencies: events in which X occurred, but Y could have occurred instead. This could make it reasonable to consider possible worlds in which those past contingencies were realized. But this only opens up only limited possibilities.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If voters exercised LFW, then perhaps a different outcome could have occurred- but even LFW choices are made for reasons that would still be present- so it's too far-fetched to take seriously.
"Counterfactual fictions" would be a more precise label for discussing the past.
I agree with pretty much everything else you said.
That's true, but such a goal is a fool's errand. For example:
Quoting Ludwig V
The modern logician wants to say things like this while pretending that recognizing what is "distinguishable as a distinct entity" does not involve metaphysics. These are the sorts of basic confusions that naturally arise when one banishes metaphysics with his left hand and beckons it with his right.
At the end of the day you end up with incoherent reifications of "logic" as some sort of Platonic form:
Quoting Banno
I'd point back to the summary on the last page. The logic of possible worlds is agreed on by Kripke and Lewis. Indeed, it is a logic, a way of setting out our discussion consistently, and as such it's not so much a question of its being true of false as it is of its being applicable or agreed.
Then, separately, there is the issue of how we apply the logic. And this is were Lewis and Kripke differ.
Disagreeing with the logic is akin to disagreeing that four and two is six. One might coherently doubt that there are four sheep in one paddock and two in the other, but not that if there are four in one and two in the other then there are six altogether.
Meta, Relativist and Leon disagree as to the number of sheep, but think they can disagree as to the sum of four and two.
Again, there are ontological implications in the logic. It treats of individuals and predicates and possibilities, and so presumes their existence. It is however silent as to the nature of those individuals and predicates and possible worlds.
We end up with something not too dissimilar to Lewis' counterpart world, a world in which the moon circles the Earth, Anne's neighbour is mowing the lawn, Anne has an office with a desk, filled out maximally so that every possibility is settled. And the difference is that Anne is in her office.
What is the nature of this world, if it is not of the sort set out by Lewis?
We might have it that the possible world w is (described by) a set of propositions such that each is either true, or it is false. We can call such an arrangement, a State of Affairs. So Anne's being in her office is a state of affairs, and in some worlds it will be true, in others, false. Notice that it can only be true in those worlds in which Anne exists; and "exists" here means that Anne is one of the individuals in the domain of that world. It is not to say that Anne is "actual". To be sure, one of those mooted worlds happens to have the states of affairs that are the same as the state of affairs in the actual world, and in that world, presumably Anne both exists and is actual.
It should be apparent that if certain things are true in some world, other things will also be true. So if "Algol is a pet" is true, then "there are pets" is also true. It seems odd to need to point this out, but given some of the side conversations here, it might be useful. There are logical implications for many of the propositions we are considering; they have implications that follow not from the metaphysics but from the way in which our talk is structured. We can phrase this as some truths either including or precluding others. Importantly, this is about the implications of how we set things out, not about how things in the world are structured.
This brings us to the definition of a possible world for Abstractionism - AW2. A possible world is a set of states of affairs that is consistent and total - a set of propositions that is self-consistent and to which we cannot add any further propositions.
(This differs somewhat from the article, which talks of a state of affairs being possible, risking the appearance of circularity; what is meant is consistency, as is clear from "they are consistent — i.e., possible" It would have been preferable had Menzel not used "possible" in the definition of "possible world", but it is clear that what is meant is that a possible world must be consistent)
Possible worlds then, are maximally consistent sets of propositions. One of those maximally consistent sets of propositions happens to set out how things are in the world we inhabit, and we call this the actual world.
Might stop there for a bit.
Sure, but in the situation we're talking about every possible world is actual, and there's no definition as to what actual means. So "actual" is meaningless.
Quoting RussellA
The point though, is that all the possible worlds are said to be actual. Then there is the source of my empirical experience, which is not one of the possible worlds (as these are what are in the model), therefore not actual. So I concluded that it is an illusion.
Quoting RussellA
No, the actual world we live in is not actual, the possible worlds are actual. The set of possible worlds might include a supposed representation of the world we live in, or something like that, as one of the possible/actual worlds, but that is distinct from the world we live in, which is left as an illusion or something else other than actual.
Quoting Relativist
I don't really agree with this, and I tired to explain why, in the last post. Under the presumption that determinism is not true, there is ontological possibility when looking from the present toward the future. But when we look to the past and say that Y could have occurred instead of X, this is to project the present into the past, and say that at that time, when that was present, Y could have occurred. But this is a fictitious projection of the present back into the past, which is really not possible to do, go back in time. So at this time now, "Y could have occurred" is not a possibility at all, because X occurred, and that eliminated the possibility of Y occurring. And that's why it's better to call Y a counterfactual rather than a possibility. Nor is it even an epistemic possibility, because we know that X occurred, and to say that it is possible that Y could have occurred contradicts this. Using "possible" in this context is not acceptable, and a potential source of confusion.
Quoting Relativist
That's right, "counterfactual fiction" is the appropriate term. In no way are alternative pasts "possibilities", so it is misleading to call them this.
Wouldn't this be better expressed as "Individual a exists in possible world w =def w includes a in its domain"? Point being much the same as my aside:
We have worlds as sets of propositions / states of affairs, and individuals as elements of a domain relative to a world. So it's pretty straight forward to say that to exist is to be in the domain, much as we do with first-order logic. It also keeps actuality away from existence.
Is there a problem with calling them possible worlds?
Doing this avoids treating existence as a property, avoids reifying “existence” as a state of affairs, and matches first-order semantics.
I like that. That allows the logician to add on any ontology she likes, or just be anti-metaphysical.
You're conflating possibility with potential. There is no potential for a different past, but we can consider whether a past event was necessary or contingent.
The past event E was contingent if the causal factors (C) that produced E had the potential (at the time) to produce E or ~E. IOW, both E and ~E were possible.
After the event, it will remain a historical fact that E was contingent (E and ~E were possible).
For those reading along, the standard definition of contingency is roughly just that an event is contingent if it is true in some but not all possible worlds.
This has the great advantage of not involving any notion of causality or temporality.
One of the things happening in this side conversation is that modality, temporality and causality are being mixed together with little clear idea of how they interact - that is, without a suitable logic.
One of the great advantages of possible world semantics is that it can be used to provide such logics.
Please take a look at my earlier response to this. But I like to address this in a little different way.
Let us say some fictitious community commonly calls a particular liquid "warder". One day they decide to place the liquid in a pot and place it over a fire to see what would happen. After several hours, they notice the liquid was gone, and there was a white powder remaining. In amazement, they thought the liquid was transformed in the white powder by the heat of the fire. They called this powder "warder" as well, for them it was just a transformation into a different physical state, a solid.
Centuries past, the community developed an Atomic Theory of Matter. Soon they discovered that the liquid they called "warder" was composed of 98% H2O and 2% NaCl. When they perform the same experiment of heating in the pot, they discovered the white powder they called "warder" was compose of 100% NaCl. But even with this discovery, they continue to refer to both liquid and white power as "warder". Have they made some error in this case? What is the nature of this error? Scientifically there is no error, the composition they got right. An error in naming? But one can use the same name to refer to multiple object anytime in language, context will clarify any confusion. If you say there was some metaphysical error committed here, well what was it? I don't think we can make any sense of what a "metaphysical error" would be in this case.
IOW, it ignores the controversies. I have inferred that the controversies are the topic of this theead.
Clarifies, would be a better word.
Your Quoting Relativist
is pretty much right. Contingency is modal, potential is causal, such that if we mix the two, then we ought keep close track of which is which.
Unfortunately your definition of contingency mixes causality and and modality. If it were a definition of determinacy, it would work.
I wasn't "defining" possibility, I was discussing the ontology of possibilty - pertinent to the discussion of
"The Possibilism-Actualism Debate", referenced in the Op.
There are no metaphysically possible worlds unless there is contingency in the world, and this implies an ontological basis. You aren't obligated to participate in discussing that, but it is erroneous to suggest it's not a legitimate issue that directly relates to the topic.
That is like saying because there is no definitive definition of “pain” the concept of pain becomes meaningless.
==========================================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No one has directly seen a quark, but only theorised about them. The Merriam Webster dictionary defines “illusion” as “something that deceives or misleads intellectually”. “Illusion” would be the wrong word to describe our understanding of quarks. Similarly with theorised possible worlds.
============================================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It depends what the expression “the actual world we live in” is referring to.
Is it referring to i) the world as we perceive it through our senses or ii) the external world that is causing our sensations?
There is an escape.
Essence does not play a part in Kripke’s Rigid Designator.
As the Wikipedia article of Naming and Necessity writes:
Hesperus is Phosphorus is necessarily true as both refer to the same thing, Venus. That Hesperus and Phosphorus have the same identity is only known a posteriori because of empirical observation.
In Kripke’s theory of naming, there is an initial naming of a person, their baptism. In a sense, JL Austin’s performative utterance.
There is then a recursive process, a causal link between this baptised object and future objects.
For example, in possible world 5, there is a causal chain going back from Aristotle 5 to the original baptised Aristotle, meaning that Aristotle 5 is necessarily baptised Aristotle. In possible world 9, there is a causal chain going back from Aristotle 9 to the original baptised Aristotle, meaning that Aristotle 9 is necessarily baptised Aristotle. Therefore, Aristotle 5 is necessarily Aristotle 9. This means that Aristotle is a rigid designator because necessarily and causally linked to all other Aristotles.
Thereby, the baptised Aristotle = casually linked to {Aristote 1 in possible 1, Aristotle 2 in possible world 2, Aristotle 3 in possible world 3, etc}
This is an extensional definition. No intensional definition is required.
Knowing that baptised Aristotle is causally linked to Aristotle 1 tells us nothing about Aristotle’s essence.
For example that a snooker ball moves when hit by a snooker cue tells us nothing about the intrinsic nature or essence of either the snooker ball or snooker cue.
Kripke's Rigid Designator avoids such philosophical problems as to the nature of essence because based on a particular theory of naming.
As I explained, it's ontological possibility, and this is very similar to "potential", but potential I consider to be the broader term than ontological possibility.
Quoting Relativist
Sure, all physical things and actions can be understood as "contingent". That means their existence is dependent on causation. The point though, is that by the nature of time, once a contingent action occurs, it is impossible that it did not occur. Therefore the nature of time is such that, as time passes something which is seen to be contingent (existing only as an idea, and requiring causation), may become necessary (having physical existence).
Because of this (the nature of time), it is incorrect to talk about past activities, which are known to be true, as possibilities. Such things do not fulfill the criteria of ontological possibility (they are impossible to be otherwise), nor epistemic possibility (they are known to be true).
Quoting Relativist
Yes, E "was" contingent, and both E and ~E "were" possible. Notice the use of the past tense. However, we cannot represent both "E and ~E as possible" now, accept by epistemic possibility. If we do not know which is the case. We know that it is possible that either E or ~E occurred, and by the law of excluded middle it is necessary that one or the other is the case, but we do not know which. That is the basis of epistemic possibility. then we can use logic to try to figure out which. At that time though, when it was present, then both E and ~E were possible in the ontological sense. In this case, when it is at the present and neither one has occurred, neither one is necessary, and the law of excluded middle is violated.
So there is a significant difference between epistemic possibility and ontological possibility. One violates the law of excluded middle the other does not. And, in the case of "E and ~E were possible", at that time referred to in the past, if we know which one occurred, then there is no epistemic possibility. When we look back in time, and we know what happened, even though the event "was" contingent, it is now known as necessary, there is no "possibility" involved in any sense of the word, and alternatives are counterfactuals.
Quoting Banno
How could that possibly be an advantage? You just plunge yourself deeper into the fantasy world of Platonism, and completely disrespect the reality of temporality. Advantage for what, sophistry?
Quoting Banno
Exactly, it is "without a suitable logic". This is because the logicians prefer to drift off into their fantasy world of Platonism, with complete disrespect for what the metaphysicians are telling them. Some will even say that metaphysics is an unnecessary waste. And so, we are left without a suitable logic to deal with temporal reality.
Quoting Banno
Obviously that is false, "possible worlds" cannot provide that. It completely distances itself from temporal reality by not distinguishing between the sense of "possibility" which violates the law of excluded middle (ontological possibility), and the sense of "possibility" which does not violate the law of excluded middle (epistemic possibility). Further, it allows within that muddled mix in the concept of "possibility", a contradictory sense of "possibility", the counterfactual, which is not a "possibility" in any real sense.
Clearly "possible worlds" in itself, cannot provide for these three very different senses of "possibility". It might provide for one of those senses, but then the others require something different, due to the substantial difference between them. It is the matter of trying to squeeze all these substantially different senses of "possibility" into one "possible worlds" model, which causes the problem.
Quoting RussellA
You left out the other condition, "pain" must refer to everything as well. If pain refers to everything, as "actual" refers to all possible worlds, and there is no definition for "pain", then it's meaningless.
Quoting RussellA
I disagree, I think quarks are illusory. They exist as theoretical particles, but cannot be produced for observation due to the strong force. What is indicated is that the strong force is not understood, and mass in general is not understood, and "quarks" are just posited to account for that lack of understanding. The concept of "quark" misleads intellectually, by producing the illusion that something not understood is understood.
Quoting RussellA
It doesn't matter. Even the experience of our perceptions must be put into descriptive words before it becomes a part of the modal model. If the modal model is "the actual", then our perceptions are not.
No, that's not what contingent means. Suppose necessitarianism is true. Necessitarianism is the theory that every that event that occurs (past and future) occurred necessarily. IOW there are contingent events and no objects that exists contingently.
Under this theory, laws of nature necessitate their result. Where A and B are states of affairs, if A causes B, through a law of nature, then A necessarily causes B. If you have a ball in your hand, and you release the ball, it will necessarily fall to the ground (assuming there is nothing in the environment to impede the fall). Classical laws of nature work like this.
Contrast this with a quantum event, whose outcome is a consequence of quantum uncertainty. The specific result was not necessary (under most interpretations of QM). It was contingent. And yet, it was caused. So causation can either produce its effect necessarily or contingently. It becomes a historical fact that the effect was contingent vs necessary.
There is a difference between “pain refers to everything” and “pain refers to everything that is painful.”
==========================================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Perhaps that is true. In the same vein, every concept we have misleads intellectually by producing the illusion that something not understand is understood.
For example, we have the concept of numbers, but who knows what a number is. We have the concept of pain, but who knows what pain is. We have the concept of consciousness, but who knows what consciousness is.
All concepts may mislead us, but what other choice do we have?
===========================================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I perceive that the sun is shining. In my actual world the sun is shining.
I imagine a possible world in which the sun is not shining. It is possible that there is an actual world where the sun is not shining.
Actual worlds may exist or possibly exist.
You refer to Kripke's "necessity of origin". Kripke writes:
"How could a person originating from different parents, from a totally different sperm and egg, be this very woman? One can imagine, given the woman, that various things in her life could have changed...One is given, let's say, a previous history of the world up to a certain time, and from that time it diverges considerable from the actual course...And so it's possible that even though she were born of these parents she never became queen...But what's harder to imagine is her being born of different parents. It seems to me that anything coming from a different origin would not be this object" - Naming and Necessity, p 113
So he's saying an individual is essentially tied to particular features of its origin in a way that it is not essentially tied to particular features of its subsequent history. Further, he's saying that origin is a necessary condition, not a necessary and sufficient condition. Here's what he has to say about identity over time:
"adequate necessary and sufficient conditions for identity which do not beg the question are very rare...Mathematics is the only case I really know of where they are given within a possible world. I don't know of such conditions for identity of material objects over time, or for people. Everyone knows what a problem this is. But let's forget about that." -Naming and Necessity p43
If he can't account for identity over time, then he can't account for true trans-world identity either. Both would require sharp criteria that are both necessary and sufficient. Kripke is just suggesting some rules for the game of entertaining counterfactual worlds. They're OK rules, although different views of what is essential to an identity could lead to different rules.The issue is that the rules do not entail that these counterfactual worlds are actually POSSIBLE.
So some of us object to labeling them "possible worlds" because they are fictions with some things in common with the actual world without regard to whether these fictions could have occurred. This is purely a semantics issue. But the more serious issue is that Kripke gives very little insight to (The Possibilism-Actualism debate).
As the Wikipedia article says, the possibilist believes "There are possibilia, that is, things that are not actual but could have been." It's an ontological debate, that Kripke doesn't participate in.
In terms of modality, w? is not treated any differently to any other world within the formal semantics. It's a convention of the interpretation, an indexical, like "here" or "now"; a thing of convenience. It usually marks the place who's access relations we are considering
What we haven't looked at much is how accessibility works. It's not mentioned much in the article. Accessibility is the relation that sets out which worlds we can "get to" from a given possible world.
So if I am about to flip a coin, I am in a world that can access a world in which the coin comes up "heads", or a world in which the coin can come up "tails". Both are available. But if I just flipped a coin, and it came up "tails", the possible world in which it came up "heads" is no longer accessible.
Importantly, accessibility is not causal, temporal, or epistemic unless specified. And it can be so specified. It constrains what worlds we have access to.
Let's look at temporal logic. A simple temporal logic sets the accessibility relation between possible worlds so that one possible world is the past and other possible worlds are the future. From the past world, many future possible worlds are accessible. But from those future worlds, only one past world is accessible.
We might specify w? as now, and various other worlds as possible futures and pasts. In our world it is true that Caesar crossed the Rubicon, and if we want to model history, we stipulate that we cannot access those worlds in which he disbanded the 8th and returned to Rome. But if we want to write an historical fiction, we would thereby access a world in which he did just that. The access relations depend on what it is we wish to model.
To be clear, there are a range of temporal logics, and which you make use of depends on what it is you wish to model. This is just one example.
And there are similarly logics that model causation in terms of accessibility. Lewis constructed such a logic. The coin flip mentioned earlier is a simple example of one possible approach, but there are many others.
The take-away: the structure of possible world semantics that Kripke set up has been used to formalise a wide variety of situations by amongst other things constructing suitable accessibility relations. Since these are dependent on the core possible world semantics, it might be good practice to make sure we understand what that is before we go off talking about these applications of that logic.
Folk hereabouts who jump to causation and temporality quickly become quite muddled.
I am not sure if I am well-versed enough in Kripkean semantics to respond to your objection. That being said, here are my thoughts:
Your objection appears to be that all instances of water are some mixture. And, if all instances of water are some mixture, and if it is impossible to refer to a part of a mixture, then it is impossible to refer to a part of "water mixture," namely, the part that is H2O. Compositionally and scientifically, you claim, water is not H2O. But if water is not H2O, then we appear to be limited to identity claims that we could know a priori (i.e. H2O is H2O) and cannot have access to a posteriori necessary truths. It is an interesting objection.
I think intensionality is relevant in matters of reference. My point here is that, when I refer to water, what I am referring to, what I mean, is not the NaCl or the mud or whatever else is in the water, what I am referring to is the H2O stuff. In that case, maybe I can refer to a part of a mixture. I think if you take the view that reference is fixed by the thing that is referenced, then the issue becomes an issue. In other words, if my composition of H2O and NaCl is what determines what I am referring to, then yeah, that would also determine what is meant by water. On the other hand, if what I mean by water is in some sense prior to or co-relational to the thing in the world that is being picked out, then I am not so sure that we have to use the actual-world instantiation of something when we refer.
The SEP article on rigid designation discusses another objection. The objection there is that water is H2O is in terms of content the same semantic statement as H2O is H2O. But if this were the case, that water is H2O would again appear to fail to be an a posteriori claim about the world. However, I think that this objection, similarly to yours, defines reference as an extensional matter; that is, as being based on what is in the world out there. If instead intensionality factors into reference, it seems that we can refer to the stuff that is water without meaning the stuff that is H2O even though water is H2O.
Would be interested to hear what you think about it.
My sense is that: yes, an error was made. The community thought that the stuff that was NaCl was H2O in a solid form, they were incorrect. They can refer to both as warder as long as they don't mean "H2O is NaCl" if they were to say "warder is warder."
My point with the example is prior to any Atomic Theory of Matter, the community can name the liquid and solid to assist in identifying macroscopic objects and processes without any consideration of microscopic structures. In the example, they simple refer to what is a clear liquid and a white powder and name both “warder”. The name functions for them, “Go fetch me a bottle of ‘warder’ from the shelf so I can perform the experiment” or “After the transformation, warder became a solid powder.” Naming in this example serves the community to identify macroscopic objects to fetch, focus attention, or call out. Knowledge of the composition of both need not stop one from using such a name to carry out these functions. There is no need to appeal to essences in all possible worlds to understand what the name is referring to in this example.
This is why I say there is no error in naming.
Another way to answer this is "if you do not have H2O you do not have H2O, but something can always be named "water".
But please provide your response to this: If you discovered "air" is composed of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and 1% Argon, what is rigidly designated in every possible world? Which one do you say, if you don't have X you do not have "Air"?
It seems you cannot use the same rationale like you do for "water", the most dominant component.
I think the real answer here is it does not matter what you say, only what we humans agree upon. Wittgenstein in PI 49 says something similar, "But I do not know whether to say that the figure described by our sentence consists of four or of nine elements! Well, does the sentence consist of four letters or of nine? And which are its elements, the types of letter, or the letters? Does it matter which we say, so long as we avoid misunderstandings in any particular case?"
There is a good quote from the Introduction in Noam Chomsky's book "Cartesian Linguistics" by James McGilvray that I find useful in this case:
“This is because, as Chomsky suggests, in the domains of mathematics and the natural sciences, one finds strong ‘normative’ constraints on same-use, constraints not found in the use of natural language, where people employ and enjoy linguistic creativity. Everyday speakers are not engaged on a unified project. And as Chomsky also points out, it is no surprise that Fregean semantic theories – those that suppose a community with shared thoughts and shared uniform symbols for expressing these thoughts, and an assumed constraint to be talking about the same thing whenever they use a specific symbol – work quite well with mathematics and the natural sciences. But they do not work with natural languages, a hard lesson for the many philosophers and semanticians who try to adapt Fregean semantics to natural languages.”
This is the problem Kripke has with using the natural language term "water" and trying to call it identical with the scientific term "H2O". His only choice is to massage that vague term "water" into a precise term like "H2O" to fit in with his domain of logic. Chemistry sort of does that by applying the chemical naming convention by calling H2O, "dihydrogen monoxide".
In Chomsky's "New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind" he gives many useful examples showing this difficulty,
"Even in such usage, with its questionable invocation of natural science, we find that whether something is water depends on special human interest and concerns, again in ways understood without relevant experience; the term "impurities" covers some difficult terrain. Suppose a cup1 is filled from the tap. It is a cup of water, but if a tea bag is dipped into it, that is no longer the case. It is now a cup of tea, something different. Suppose cup2 is filled from a tap connected to a reservoir in which tea has been dumped (say, as a new kind of purifier). What is in cup2 is water, not tea, even if a chemist could not distinguish it from the present content of cup1. The cups contain the same thing from one point of view, different things from another, but in either case cup2 contains only water and cup1 only tea. In cup2, the tea is an "impurity" in Putnam's sense, in cup1 it is not, and we do not have water at all (except in the sense that milk is mostly water, or a person for the matter). If cup3 contains pure H2O into which a tea bag has been dipped, it is tea, not water, though it could have a higher concentration of H2O molecules than what comes from the tap or is drawn from the river."
I think I understand all that. We seem (not only in this context, but in most modern discussions of logic) to have got to a situation where what logic one uses is just a function of what project one is pursuing. Logic as pragmatism. Is that grossly unfair?
Quoting NotAristotle
It looks as if you are saying that what determines reference is simply a question of how each speaker is using the word. I can see a sense in which that is true. But then I want to know how it is that other people can "get" what I am referring to, given that they may or may not be using the word in the same way as the speaker.
Quoting Richard B
It does seem obvious that the way a community refers to something cannot be determined by all possible future discoveries about that substance. We have to adapt how we refer to things as we go along - future cases are determined as they crop up. It seems to me that rigid designation sweeps away all the problems in pursuit of the timeless present.
That's exactly right. But I would say that "massaging" our meanings is how we manage things. Our critique ought to not to target the massaging, but the sad consequence that we end up with a misleading view of our world.
Quoting Richard B
I would agree. But we need to give more of an answer to those who think it does matter. There is what may be a side-issue, but we need to be aware that just as there are many things that humans agree on, there are also many things that they disagree on. Paradoxically, human agreements may also be the frame of human disagreements.
Quoting Relativist
I agree with you. Necessitarianism does seem to sweep the concept of contingency away. So we need to show why we need it. I don't have an answer.
Quoting RussellA
We have to be very careful about our terms here. As a result of reading this thread, I have become quite confused about what "actual" actually means (!) and how it relates to "exists" (and "real"). I don't see how actual world could only possible exist. It seems to mean something close to "exists" and like it, in that neither are, in Kant's sense, predicates. (Nor, come to think of it, is "real")
Quoting Relativist
I think you misunderstand Kripke's project. It is, it seems to me, to find a way of forgetting about everything that makes a problem for the project of logic. In which, perhaps, he succeeds. Then we will ask more pragmatic questions about the project.
Quoting RussellA
I think that's far too strictly binary. Understanding is not a whole, but is (almost always) partial. No single concept can cater for all contexts, but they can be useful and helpful in some contexts. That is enough.
Yes, agreeing what a word means is problematic. Perhaps it is standard practice in philosophy that only our world is the actual world, and possible worlds cannot be called actual worlds .
It gets complicated. For the Indirect Realist, we only know the actual world as representations in the mind, whereas for the Direct Realist, we directly perceive an actual world existing independently of our representations of it.
Quoting Relativist
For Kripke, that an object, an individual such as Aristotle, is the same object in all possible worlds, is a Rigid Designator, is a consequence of his Theory of Naming.
That Aristotle is the same individual is not because of any knowledge about his essence or identity, but because of a casual chain linking Aristotle back through time to being the son of his parents at the moment of his baptism.
Kripke’s Theory of Naming thereby avoids any philosophical problems with the ontological nature of essence or identity.
That Aristotle is the same individual in different possible worlds, has the same identity and has the same essence, does not mean that Aristotle cannot be a teacher in one possible world and a carpenter in another possible world.
The individual Aristotle in all possible worlds is necessarily tied through Kripke’s Theory of Naming to his origin.
Aristotle's origin is necessary and sufficient for the identity and essence of the individual Aristotle in all possible worlds’
However, his origin is not necessary for contingent features of Aristotle, such as being a teacher or carpenter.
:grin: IE, it is wrong to say that there are actual possible worlds.
Quoting Banno
:grin: IE, there are different types of modal logic, and we always need to be clear which type we are referring to.
Clearly, I'm not a indirect realist, because I don't accept that we only know the actual world as representations in the mind, because, as Berkeley pointed out, unless you can compare a representation with its original, you can't establish what, if anything, it is a representation of.
Quoting RussellA
Clearly, I'm not a Direct Realist because I don't accept that we directly perceive an actual world existing independently of our representations of it.
I don't think that "directly" and "indirectly" are applicable in this context and I have my doubts about "real", because "unreal" in this context does not have a clear meaning.
Quoting RussellA
The implication is that the existence of the causal chain is necessary and sufficient, presumably whether or not we know it. That's extremely hard to understand, because it suggests that we do not necessarily know who Aristotle is, if anyone.
Quoting RussellA
I would agree with you if you mean that the idea of a possible possible world is incoherent. But all possible worlds are possible actual worlds. When we designate one of them, we are making that possibility actual. We do not make the possible world vanish and an exactly similar, but numerically different actual world appear.
The candidates in an election are all possible office-holders. When one of them wins, that very same possible office-holder becomes an actual office-holder. It is very confusing to think of that office-holder as an actual possible office-holder, but very easy to think of that actual office-holder as an erstwhile possible office-holder.
True. But in our daily lives we don’t need to know what the representation is of, all we need to know is the representation.
The SEP article Possible Worlds writes “The idea of possible worlds is evocative and appealing.”
Sometimes in our daily lives we need to imagine possible worlds, and sometimes we only need to know the actual world.
For example, I perceive the colour red but believe that the colour red does not exist in a mind-independent world. Something else may exist, for example a wavelength of 700nm.
When driving and I see a red traffic light, All I need to know is that I perceive the colour red in order to stop my car. It is immaterial to me what really exists in a mind-independent world. Possibly a wavelength of 700nm exists, possibly something else. In this situation, I don’t need to know a possible world of reality, all I need to know is the actual world of representations.
As you say “It is immaterial what really exactly exists in a mind-independent world because "unreal" in this context does not have a clear meaning.”
========================================================================Quoting Ludwig V
Perhaps this is a similar situation to Kripke’s argument for the necessary a posteriori. Water is necessarily H20 even before anyone knew that this was the case.
Aristotle is necessarily Aristotle even if no one knows it. An instance of necessary a posteriori.
========================================================================Quoting Ludwig V
I agree, as this seems to follow what @Banno wrote:
That was one of my points. Particularly in the context of this thread, which (per the 2nd article in the Op) IS about the ontological nature of possibility. Transworld identity is pertinent to that.
I do not think "air" is a rigid designator, and so I am happy to not designate any of the components, whether a majority component or not, as the necessary referent of the term "air."
Quoting Richard B
Is this Chomsky speaking?
I think the author is right that in everyday use, natural language terms can be multivalent as to what they refer to (example: "dont drink that water" in reference to saltwater, not H2O). On the other hand, water can, in the scientific sense, refer to H2O. And if water so refers, then when it so refers it will be the case that necessarily water is H2O as a result of the identity between the stuff and what is referred to by the term in that context. In that case, a posteriori necessary truths are retrievable as long as someone doesn't know that the stuff referred to as water is the same as the stuff referred to as H2O a priori. "Is that water H2O?" "I do not know, because I did not pay attention to chemistry in school."
Well if they aren't using the term the same way I would think that they would not get the meaning. If the meanings of the speaker diverge, they cannot have a discussion; but this appears to be something like a rule of conversation (see rules of conversational implicature by Grice).
Well, you/Kripke have your reasons for saying that, I suppose. But it is clear that whatever "water" means is not based on that information.
Quoting RussellA
Again, perhaps so. But it follows that, whoever is called Aristotle is not necessarily the philosopher that we know and love.
Quoting NotAristotle
But Kripke thinks that those are the possible ways of fixing the reference of any term. So the whole practice of referring becomes pointless.
Quoting NotAristotle
Yes, but isn't this the question that matters. A reference that cannot be used is utterly pointless.
I do not see the problem; could you say it in another way?
"Contingent" has varied meaning, it's quite ambiguous. I dismiss determinism, fatalism, and necessitarianism as fundamentally incompatible with our experience.
Quoting RussellA
As I explained, that renders "actual" as meaningless. By "meaningless" I mean you could give it any meaning you want, but you haven't so it has no meaning. The world you perceive is "actual". The world you imagine is "actual". You could imagine anything, and that could be said to be "actual". What does "actual" mean? It doesn't mean to be imagined, because what you perceive is actual as well. It isn't that someone, not necessarily, you is perceiving it, because the imaginary ones are actual.
What meaning does "actual" have here? You could remove it from your example without changing the meaning of anything. "I perceive that the sun is shining. In my world the sun is shining." "I imagine a possible world in which the sun is not shining. It is possible that there is a world where the sun is not shining." See, "actual" does absolutely nothing in your usage.
Quoting Banno
This states very clearly and precisely, in a nutshell, the significant and substantial problem with possible worlds semantics. We must deny what you yourself acknowledged as the very real and important difference, between the "actual world" of ontology, and the "actual world" of modal logic. To avoid the fallacy of equivocation, there must be "exactly one actual world". The glaring problem though, is that "actual world" is assigned to the modal model, not the ontological world, plunging modal logic deep into Idealism.
[quote=SEP] (ii) its designated “actual world” is in fact the actual world,[/quote]
What does “water” mean? "Water" means different things to different people. To a scientist, "water" is necessarily H2O. To me, "water" is necessarily wet, in that if not wet it cannot be water. To a linguist, “water” is necessarily a noun. There is no one meaning of “water”, though each meaning is necessary within its own context.
=====================================================================Quoting Ludwig V
You love Aristotle for his philosophy. But instead of being born in Stagira, he could have been born in Athens and grown up to be a carpenter. So do you love Aristotle because of who he was or what he did?
The words actual and possible are still needed.
In conversation, I might say “the sun might not be shining”, but would be confusing to a listener as it lacks context. It would be better to say “it is possible that the sun might not be shining”, as this does infer a context.
Similarly, my saying “the sun is shining” lacks context. It would be better to say “the sun is actually shining”.
The words "possible" and "actual" add context.
Wow, quite an admission. I guess you are saying that when it comes to these general, vague terms like "water" or "air", we have either two choices, one, say possible worlds semantics/rigid designators don't apply, or we can just remove the vagueness and just say "water" means "H2O".
Quoting NotAristotle
If you are indicating that these terms are interchangeable, this is wrong. You would think that if one is saying water is identical to H2O that they would be interchangeable. But that is not the case. For example, can you say that if you had one molecule of water you had one water? No, the term "water" when used in science refers to a collection of H2O molecules that under particular temperature and pressure conditions exhibit the macroscopic properties we typically call a "liquid." But guess what, under others conditions this collection of H2O molecule would not be called "water" anymore, but "steam" or "vapor", and under other conditions you would call it "ice".
So, what is all of this logic posturing by saying "water is H2O"is a posteriori necessary truth to achieve in the realm of science? To make prescriptive linguistic corrections like "Hey scientist, you forgot what Kripke said about "water is H2O", when you call that collection of H2O molecules "steam" you are wrong, please correct yourself and call it "water".
But you said that the possible worlds are actual, so you have no use for actual, regardless of context. The world you perceive is actual, and the possible worlds you imagine are all actual. "Actual" is meaningless. There is an implied difference between the perceived world and the imaginary worlds, but both those categories are actual, so "actual" serves no purpose.
Why is that controversial?
Quoting Richard B
Okay then, "water" is interchangeable with...Quoting Richard B
The modality is equally relevant. Your modality is epistemic: given the facts available to you, it is (epistemically) possible the sun is shining.
But if the sun is actually shining, then although you don't know this fact, it is physically, metaphysically, and logically impossible for the sun to not be shining at that point of time. (Law of noncontradiction).
Yet another issue: is the sun shining at that point of time a contingent fact, or a necessary fact?
I can imagine a possible world where aliens live. This imagined possible world may in fact be an actual world.
I agree that if my perceived world was “actual” and all imagined possible worlds were “actual”, then the word “actual “ would be redundant.
However, if my perceived world was “actual” and some imagined possible worlds were “actual”, then the word "actual “ would not be redundant (because some imagined possible worlds would not in fact be “actual”.)
The difference is in the quantifiers all and some.
The point, though was that all the possible worlds are actual worlds. If we say "possible" that means "may" be. But Lewis' interpretation appears to be that each possible world "is" an actual world. That's what we were discussing, all the possible worlds are actual worlds.
Logical pluralism rather than pragmatism. The challenge is to use formal grammar to exhibit the incoherences and inconsistencies in our philosophical meanderings. It's not picking a logic that gives the answer we want, but looking at what we have to say using formal tools that set out clearly the problems.
See, for a small example how
[hide="Meta's insistence that the actual world is not a possible world leads to immediate contradiction. "]In standard Kripke semantics:
Now suppose, as Meta insists, that:
Immediate problem:
But if w? ? W, then there is no world at which “actually p” can be evaluated and the semantics cannot assign truth conditions to actuality claims.[/hide]
What this shows is that Meta's way of talking is incompatible with the formal account. Meta is helping himself to the expressive resources of possible-worlds semantics (modal operators, actuality, evaluation) while rejecting the background grammar that makes those resources coherent. He's not offering an alternative theory. He is attempting to take something he expresses in informal talk, and express it in our best formal language. And in doing so we find that it becomes incoherent. This is precisely where formalisation earns its keep; not by settling metaphysical conundrums, but in exhibiting ways of speaking that cannot be regimented without contradiction. Once that’s shown, the choice is stark: revise the talk, or abandon the framework. You don’t get to keep both - unless you are Meta, and simply double down on your errors.
Lewis does believe that all possible worlds are actual worlds, but that's not a common view. Lots of philosophers disagree about that, but still use possible world semantics to discuss counterfactuals. Whether or not those counterfactual worlds are possible is debatable - but "possible" can apply to past, present, and future.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In everyday discourse it's ambiguous, but it appears to me that among philosophers, there's no ambiguity about what it means. There are controversies, but not about the basic definition.
Yours is a good account. That's why I have come back to it - it's close enough to what I understand that I can use it in these explanations.
However I think the quote is around the wrong way.
We have a formal account that talks of things in possible worlds. We want to take that back to our natural language. We have so far two ways of doing this. the first is Lewis' idea that the possible worlds are all concrete, and we look for and match the most similar individuals in each. The second is Kripke's idea that we simply refer to the same individuals with the same name in any possible world in which they exist.
What Kripke expresses that view in natural languages, the result is that proper names are used to refer to the very same individual in every world in which they exist.
So, it's not that rigid designation is a consequence of his theory of meaning, but that his account of modal logic has as a consequence that proper names rigidly designate, and his theory of naming tries to account for that.
That is, the "a"'s and "b"'s in formal logic are most simply understood as cognates of proper name sin English. So since those "a"'s and "b"'s refer to the same thing in different possible worlds, then it seems we might do well to presume that the proper names of English do likewise.
You are right that what Kripke calls an "essence" are those properties that belong to an individual in every possible world.
He uses the example of Queen Elizabeth; we might think the following is an innocent question: "What if Queen Elizabeth had different parents?" It might have been that the babes were swapped at birth, for instance, or some such muck up. But then the person who, in the actual world, is Queen Elizabeth, would, in that other possible world in which the babies were swapped, not have gone on to become queen - perhaps she ran a fish and chip shop in Bristol instead - and the baby for whom she was swapped went on to become the Queen.
Now look carefully at what just happened. We asked the innocent question, "What if Queen Elizabeth had different parents?", and it turned out that this could not have happened! The person who, in the actual world, became Queen Elizabeth, could not have had different parents.
What might have happened is that some other baby, with different parents, could have become the queen.
That's a very different situation.
In parsing the English sentence "What if Queen Elizabeth had different parents?" into our modal logic, we find that what looks to be a question about Queen Elizabeth is better considered as a question about two different people.
So being the child of King George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is true of Queen Elizabeth in every possible world, and in those worlds in which the apparent Queen of England is not the daughter of King George VI and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, we are talking about some other individual becoming the Queen...
Think on it a bit. Certain characteristics belong with an individual in every possible world in which it exists. This account of essence is quite different to scholastic notions, but has many advantages, not the least being a clear definition.
Or, any possible world might have been actual, but only the actual world is actually actual... :wink:
Quoting RussellA
Yep.
Kripke starts with a formal modal logic which fixes individuals across possible worlds in order to achieve consistency. He did this in his papers “A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic” (1959) and “Semantical Analysis of Modal Logic I” (1963)
He then takes that modal logic and looks to see how it might be understood in English or other ntural languages. That's Naming and Necessity.
Chomsky looked at Naming and Necessity as a theory of linguistics, with modal implications. So he thought of rigid designation as a semantic thesis about how names function. But it is a conjecture about how names might be understood in a way that is compatible with the formal logic.
Kripke is not offering a theory of linguistics or physics. He is saying something more like "Here is a coherent and consistent grammar for talking about modality. If we want to be coherent and consistent, these are the consequences".
Chomsky and can't use linguistics or physics to show that the logic is inconsistent.
What they might do is adopt the grammar and see what the implications are for linguistics and physics.
So again, first make sure you have understood what Kripke is doing.
Yeah, and it doesn't help when folk throw "concrete" into the mix...
Seems to me that the answer is to understand "actual" as an indexical. It's our world. It will change as "our" changes.
In the modal logic, the actual world is w?. It is just the one from which whatever accessibility relations we specify originate. For example, “?P” (possibly P) is true at w? if P is true in some world accessible from w?. It's indexical. It could be any possible world.
In English, the actual world is the one we are in. It's also indexical. The upshot: being the actual world depends on who is talking.
The most clearly consistent way to talk about existence is via quantification. And that is defined in terms of the domain of discourse. If something is in the domain, then we say that it exists. So Frodo exists if the domain is Middle Earth.
"Being actual" and "existing", used in this way, become quite distinct, dissolving much of the muddle.
"Real" is best treated as Austin suggested, as a relative term - it's not real, it's a counterfeiter; it's not real, it's artificial... and so on.
Now pointing out that sometimes water is not the very same as H?O, because it sometimes contains impurities, is not a counter to this.
Because it denies the antecedent.
Kripke's point is logical, not physical. He is not telling physicist their job.
That's a choice you make, Meta.
For the rest of us, some proposal is contingent if and only if it is true in some, but not all, possible worlds.
Treat "actual" as an indexical, and this dissipates.
It is as if you were arguing that "over there" is meaningless, because it can be made to refer to any place at all. :lol:
When you ask someone to go and stand over there, you might indeed be indicating any place at all; but it is fixed by the context.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yep. That's how indexicals work.
This shows very clearly and precisely, in a nutshell, the significant and substantial problem with your understanding of possible world semantics. In standard modal logic, the term “actual world” is an indexical label applied to one world in the model—it does not make any ontological claim about that world being the only real or “ontologically actual” world. It is a convenient reference point for evaluating modal statements, just as “here” or “now” is in ordinary language.
Equating the “actual world” of a model with an ontologically privileged world is a misunderstanding. Modal logic does not commit to idealism or deny the existence of the external, physical world; it merely provides a framework for reasoning about possibility and necessity. The indexical nature of “actual” dissolves the apparent problem: there is exactly one designated actual world in the model, but this says nothing about reality beyond the model.
You confusion comes from thinking that the world given the title w? in a modal interpretation must be our world - the confusion of the modal and the metaphysical. Think I've mentioned that before.
Yes, cheers - understood. I find it easier to answer these odd little objections than to move on with the harder stuff of the article, so I find myself somewhat distracted. There's a chance that the explanations I'm giving will help folk see the direction the article is taking. It's already very clear that Meta - for whom you started this thread - is for whatever reason incapable of following the discussion. But others may be coming along.
I do what to get my head around the section Irreducible Modality and Intensional Entities, and I don't think the material there especially deep. But finding the right words will take time.
It might be better - and here I go against my desire not to multiply terms unnecessarily - to say that Lewis thought all possible worlds were concrete; and that we could call the concrete world in which we find ourselves, the actual world. Lewis thought of actuality as indexical.
Quoting Relativist
Spot on.
A standard of clarity. Tempting, very tempting.
But you quoted Austin -
Quoting Banno
I think he would have take issue with you. So perhaps I can suggest that things are not anything like as clear as you seem to propose here.
Ryle, in "Dilemmas" draws an interesting distinction between technical and untechnical concepts, which clarifies, to some extent, his talk of parade ground language and informal logic. The point about ordinary language, for him, is that it is inescapable and even technical concepts rely on it. To put it another way, formal logic starts from ordinary language, which remains basic to our understanding. Formal languages are in that sense parasitic. (Scientists, mathematicians, logicians all live and work in the ordinary world,)
Surely I don't need to try to summarize Wittgenstein's critique.
Which is not to say that formal logic never does the job you identify for it. Whether Russell's theory of descriptions is correct or not, it is, to my mind, a good example of what can be done.
But formal logic has problems of its own. The logical explosion (ex falso quodlibet - from a false proposition anything follows) is a good example - to my mind, at least.
Even modal logic has issues. Trans-world identity seems to be one of them.
Perhaps that is enough for present purposes.
But just as you can learn about life by playing Poker, we can learn about language by playing logic.
We set up things like validity, coherence and cogency as worthwhile. Then we look at how language might be if we value validity, coherence and cogency. And what we get are formal systems, little packages of language that show how it might hang together. We find it useful in putting our words together in our natural languages to borrow from these little packages.
And some find it interesting in its own right. it's how ex falso quodlibet looks odd that encourages discussion of non-classical logics.
So, what conclusions do we draw here?
All the talk of "Aristotle" referring to Aristotle is all very well - if the metaphysical link is all that matters. We can agree that the link exists, in some sense. But "Aristotle" has another life, in language and the use that people make of it. A referential link that obtains whether or not it is known to language users will not explain how language works, or, more accurately, how we make language work. Note that without language and its speakers, metaphysical truths cannot be formulated, never mind communicated.
Does that help?
Quoting RussellA
And yet all these people can communicate. How is that possible? There must be common elements to all these different meanings that enable communication across contexts. Those common elements are what we might call ordinary life, which is the common context that links all three people.
The notion that "actual" is indexical is not consistent with the terminology in the SEP article, The Possibilism-Actualism Debate:
Possibilists claim that we can: we must simply broaden our understanding of reality, of what there is in the broadest sense, beyond the actual, beyond what actually exists, so that it also includes the merely possible. In particular, says the possibilist, there are merely possible people, things that are not, in fact, people but which could have been. So, for the possibilist, (4) is true after all so long as we acknowledge that reality also includes possibilia, things that are not in fact actual but which could have been; things that do not in fact exist alongside us in the concrete world but which could have. Actualism is (at the least) the denial of possibilism; to be an actualist is to deny that there are any possibilia. Put another way, for the actualist, there is no realm of reality, or being, beyond actual existence; to be is to exist, and to exist is to be actual. In this article, we will investigate the origins and nature of the debate between possibilists and actualists.
That article has a link to a supplement that outlines Lewis' view: Classical Possibilism and Lewisian Possibilism. The first thesis of the outline is:There is a plurality (indeed, a plenitude) of worlds.. So when you refer to indexicality, among these worlds - it is in the context of this thesis.
This supplementary article goes on to say:"Unfortunately, things often get a bit murky in discussions of Lewis because, as noted in thesis 5, he does not use the word “actual” to indicate the mode of being that we enjoy (and that, according to the classical possibilist, some things do not) but, rather, to indicate this world and its inhabitants. "
This seems to suggest that each world within the "plenitude of worlds" has a similar status, and it seems to me this status entails existing. (There is a plenitude of worlds uses "is" - a form of the verb, "to be" = existing).
If this discussion were solely about interpreting Lewis, it would be reasonable to stay within his framework and terminology. But the context is broader, so we shouldn't need to limit ourselves to it. Most of us believe the world we live in is the only actual world, irrespective of Lewis' view and his terminology. Any hypothetical world other than this one is, at best, a possible world.
My issues have been:
1) possibility can be expressed in a variety of modalities, and when we don't specify that modality, confusion is likely to occur.
2) it is debatable as to whether any of the non-actual "possible" worlds are metaphysically possible. I suspect they are only epistemically possible (i.e. they only seem possible because of our limited knowledge).
For @frank, by way of moving along...
Put simply, and no doubt losing a whole lot of import thereby, here's how I read that section.
We saw previously that in Lewis' system possibility and necessity become bigger forms of quantification - quantification over multiple concrete worlds. Modality is reduced to quantification. Lewis can do this because his definition of a world does not contain any modal terms.
That doesn't work for abstractism. Possibility and necessity remain primitive. This happens because the definition of possible worlds makes use of modal notions.
And arguably, this is a positive. What we do is start with our natural language notions of possibility and necessity and then give then a firm, consistent grounding by introducing possible worlds.
How?
Here's what I think you did:
This does not show any inconsistency with the article, nor any inconsistency in treating actual as an indexical.
Can you complete your argument?
--------------------
For my own part, the possiblism/actualism debate is much ado about very little.
The SEP distinctions and Lewisian subtleties revolve around how we use words like “actual” and “possible,” rather than revealing any deep metaphysical truth.
But to get to that, we should first get to Combinatorialism.
Oh, very good. Concrete is the mix.
Quoting Banno
That's a good idea.
But I'm bothered by the facts a) that the actual world is the one in which we are constructing the possible worlds and the point of view from which we are surveying them and identifying which world we wish to treat as actual and b) that we do not choose that world - we are lumbered with it - even thrown into it.
I think this is what you mean when you say that the issue is metaphysical. However we classify it, it looks as if we can ask the question which of my books describes it. But we cannot choose that book, only recognize that it has a certain relationship to the world in which I am surveying the books. It would invole self-referentiality, but I think you have already accepted that.
I'm trying to explain this by positing two different contexts (points of view) - the context of the world according to modal logic and the context of ordinary life. It's not a problem unique to modal logic or logic in general. It's a problem for physics as well. Perhaps even for philosophy.
Quoting Banno
It does seem that we are on the same page after all.
Quoting Banno
I don't know about conclusions. However, I do think that a practice that pays attention to cases and sometimes is happy to jump one way and sometimes the other is all that is appropriate. (I like Wittgenstein's ideas of a) a map - knowing one's way about and b) philosophy as giving peace from certain kinds of torment - notably the torment of being bewildered in a world that ought to make sense.
I would put in a word for fun and curiosity as well.
Pleased someone notes the drollery! :grin:
Quoting Ludwig V
Yep. Hence the sometime definition of truth simpliciter as "true in w?"... All of our modal logic is "true in w?"!
Quoting Ludwig V
Pretty much.
What we don't have here is any inconsistency...
Leastwise, none I can see.
I was thinking about the "books" analog the other day, but can't now recall what it was I thunked. I think something like that is going on in the article, with the tree differing accounts of what possible worlds are; and I think it is somehow off-centre. But I haven't yet worked out quite how.
Part of the problem is that the books analogy and the three accounts picture the world as complete.
I would disagree with “to the scientist “water” is necessarily H2O” but I am not going to rehash everything I have said up to this point.
But I would like to add further criticism to this idea that water is essentially H2O. Take the following three types of water (and I could name many more)
1. “Sea water”
2. “Purified water”
3. “Purified heavy water”
Sea water >96% H2O unsafe to drink
Purified water >99% H2O safe to drink but long term use may deplete essential minerals
Purified heavy water >99% D2O ok to drink in very small quantities but very hazardous in larger amounts
All use the term “water” but there is no common essence between them.
I already did, by pointing to, and discussing, the supplementary article Classical Possibilism and Lewisian Possibilism. It's pretty explicit when it says: :"Unfortunately, things often get a bit murky in discussions of Lewis because, as noted in thesis 5, he does not use the word “actual” to indicate the mode of being that we enjoy (and that, according to the classical possibilist, some things do not) but, rather, to indicate this world and its inhabitants. "
Read the whole of my post, I see no reason to repeat it.
But, fine, carry on.
So we agree that for Possibilists reality includes possibilia, things that could exist but do not actually exist, that there’s a broader realm beyond the concrete world. And that Actualists suppose only what actually exists counts as real. There’s no domain of merely possible entities. And that Lewis treates "actual" as indexical. To show inconsistency, one would have to demonstrate that the SEP article’s definitions cannot accommodate an indexical sense of “actual”, or that indexical “actual” violates SEP’s logic. I don't see that here.
But as noted, I'm more interested in the main article here than in this side issue. Once we have an agreed view on what the possibilities are for possible worlds, then we might better treat the possible and the actual.
Small steps.
Yes, I thought that's what we were talking about, Lewis' interpretation where all possible worlds are actual.
Quoting Relativist
Not at all, like all the terms of modal logic, there is a big difference between ontological meaning and modal logic meaning. That is the ongoing discussion I've had with Banno over the meaniong of "the actual world".
Quoting Banno
Obviously.
Quoting Banno
I offered an alternative theory. It involves a real ontology of time, and a separation between ontological possibility, statements of epistemological possibility, and counterfactual statements which are not possibilities at all, being statement so things which are actually impossible. That's three distinct categories.
Quoting Banno
Relaitivist and I were talking about "contingent things", not "contingent proposals". @Relativist, see what I mean about the ambiguity?
Quoting Banno
You're ignoring the other half of the conditions. The meaninglessness was dependent on referring to everything as actual, and also without a definition for "actual". That's the situation Relativist and I were discussing concerning Lewis' interpretation of possible worlds. Every possible world is an actual world, and Relativist added that the world we perceive is an actual world, therefore everything is "actual", and I said that if everything is actual, then without a definition, "actual" is meaningless.
Quoting Banno
Banno, did you not read the SEP on truth conditions? The actual world of the modal model must "in fact" be the actual world. This means it must be the ontological actual world. This will be the third or fourth time I've produced this quote. Are you blind, or just unable to understand English?
How do you interpret "is in fact the actual world", in any way other than 'is the ontologically actual world'? That is an ontological statement. It does not state as the truth condition that the designated actual world must be the designated actual world, it states that the designated actual world "is in fact the actual world". Do you see that, and understand what it means? That is why Lewis proceeds to propose that each possible world is a concrete world, just like the one we designate as "the actual world", because we know "the actual world" ontologically as a concrete world, and the truth condition requires that the actual world in the modal model must "in fact", be the actual world. Therefore he concludes that all the possible worlds must be concrete worlds, just like the one we know.
Quoting Banno
According to the SEP, the modal "actual world", must in fact, be the actual world. If you maintain that there is another "actual world", what you call the "metaphysically actual world", then to accept the modalism, you must reject the truth of the metaphysically actual world. It must be an illusion, because the modal actual world is "in fact", the actual world, and the metaphysical world is different, as you assert, so the metaphysical "actual world" must be fictional.
Quoting Banno
You think that this is the easier stuff, but you seem completely incapable of understanding it. Look at the meaning of "is in fact the actual world", for example. Why ignore the "is in fact" part, as it is a critical truth condition? Accept what the article says, and get on with the Idealism of modal logic. Instead, you keep insisting that there is another "actual world", the metaphysically actual world. But the "metaphysically actual world" is ruled out, as a fiction, when it is stipulated that the modal actual world is "in fact" the actual world. So, the easy part puts us into the idealist framework. Now, having gotten beyond the easy part, we must now proceed within that idealist framework, otherwise our interpretations are bound to be badly mistaken.
I agree it doesn't violate the logic.
Well, no. What you have offered, a set of assertions, isn’t a theory on a par with possible-worlds semantics. It doesn't provide a formal semantics. Possible-worlds semantics gives precise truth-conditions for modal claims, compositional rules for complex sentences, and a mathematically explicit structure (models, accessibility relations, evaluation clauses). Your proposal is a taxonomic distinction, a mere set of metaphysical labels separating ontology, epistemology, and counterfactual talk, without rules that determine when modal statements are true or false, or how they interact logically. It replaces a working semantic framework with intuitive metaphysical assertions, so it cannot do the same explanatory or inferential work.
The rest is layered confusion on your part.
Exists
A thing exists if it is in the domain of a world. That is, if it can be used in an existential quantification. Existence is what the existential quantifier expresses. Things can exist in one world and not in another. One point of difference between Lewis and Kripke is that for Lewis things exist only within a world, while for Kripke the very same thing can exist in multiple worlds.
A thing that exists is also possible.
In Kripke a thing can exist and not be actual or concrete.
In Lewis if a thing exists then it is concrete, and actual in some world.
Possible
It's possible if it's “true in at least one accessible world”.
Something might be possible and yet not exist - by not existing in w? but in some other possible world
Simialrly, a sentence is possible if it is true in some accessible world.
Actual
Actual is indexical. It works like here, or like now. We designate a world as the actual world, w?, and then the things that exist in that world are actual.
In modal logic being actual is a label. In metaphysics being actual is usually a special ontological state. Lewis rejects this, since everything is actual in some world.
Contingent
A modal variability across worlds, something is contingent if it exists in some, but not all, possible worlds. And similarly, sentences are contingent if ?P ^ ?~P. If it exists in all possible worlds it is necessary. If it doesn't exist in any world, it is impossible.
Contingency is assessed modally, not temporally. So an event can occur and still modally contingent.
The fact that it happened does not make it necessary.
Concrete
This one is less clear. If something is physical, spatiotemporal, or causal it might be considered concrete.
In Lewis' system everything is concrete, in a world that is spatiotemporally separate and distinct from every other possible world.
In actualist accounts, only the things in the actual world are concrete. The other stuff is abstract.
Real
A claim of Metaphysical status. In Lewis something is real if it exists. In actualist accounts it is real if it both exists and is actual.
What fun.
Just today, I've been in conversation about things like existence, necessary/contingent things, and possible worlds. By your definition of existence, it seems that things exist relatively, particularly in relation to some possible world. This is something I resonate with, but I figure there's a difference in how I'm thinking about it.
One thing that I'm not sure is addressed in possible world semantics, is this concept of a "meta-world". So, if there exists possible worlds, are they all existing together as a collection in some world that contains them all? Is that the wrong way to think about it, and how so? Does it even make sense to say worlds exist or don't exist, as it seems you're defining existence to entities within worlds rather than the worlds themselves?
Quoting Banno
I find it keeps slipping from my grasp.
Quoting Banno
It wasn't that I saw an inconsistency, it was just that I didn't see how it fitted together. However, doesn't the idea that we can choose which world is actual conflict with the definition of "truth simipliter" as "true in w?"? Or, better, if we choose to locate the world in which we construct the possible worlds in w?, (which isn't a problem in itself) doesn't that conflict with the idea that we find ourselves in that world, and do not choose it. That's why I've been trying to locate that move in a different context from the choices we can make about other possible worlds. Don't we need to mark a distinction between that world and any world we choose to treat as actual for purposes of logical analysis? just labelling it metaphysical doesn't explain anything unless we have a good definition of "metaphysical".
Quoting Richard B
I don't have a problem with this. It all goes back to the concept of a game as a network of common elements - more like a rope (which has no thread running through its entire length, but is composed of shorter threads that overlap and interlock) than a filament (like a fishing line) which isn't made up of strands. But it's not an actual argument, more of a challenge. On the other hand, so far as I know, no-one has yet risen to it, so it is very persuasive. Kripke is the exception here. No doubt he would sweep it under some carpet. But that doesn't mean it is not true.
Quoting Banno
So what do you do with Kripke's Aristotle that necessarily names Aristotle in all worlds in which Aristotle exists? (Is it really impossible that Aristotle could not have had some other name, if he was born at the right time of the right parents and did all the right things?)
Quoting QuixoticAgnostic
Kripke’s solution in his Theory of Naming is that there is an historic causal chain from a something that has a name, such as Aristotle, to the initial baptism of a something given that name, such as Aristotle’s parents naming their baby Aristotle. In a sense, this baptism is the same as JL Austin’s performative utterance. Kripke’s solution bypasses any metaphysical problems as to the essence of Aristotle. The name Aristotle is just a tag to something else, and in this case that something baptised Aristotle.
Wittgenstein’s approach in Philosophical Investigations is similar. Names exist within the context of a Form of Life, “the shared background of human cultural practices, activities, and ways of living that provide the context within which language and meaning operate” (Wikipedia). When the assistant walks onto a building site for the first time, the assistant may see the builder pick something up and say “slab”. For the assistant, this is the initial baptism of something given the name “slab”. Subsequently, when the builder says to the assistant “slab”, the assistant knows what the builder is referring to. As before, the assistant does not need to know about the essences of slabs. “Slab” just means a tag in an historic causal chain going back to an initial baptism.
Similarly with “water”, as you say, me, the scientist and the linguist share a common Form of Life, where the meaning of words is understood through historical causal chains back to a common source. These common sources may be, for example, dictionaries, school, television, newspapers, etc.
Your statement is incomplete as it needs to add “for whom”.
For Lewis, it seems that between our world and possible worlds no world is especially favoured. Therefore, for anyone living in a world, their world is the actual world.
For us, we live in the actual world. For us, other worlds are possible worlds, but for anyone living in such a possible world, they would also consider their world to be the actual world.
A possible rewording would be “But Lewis' interpretation appears to be that each possible world "is" an actual world for the inhabitants of that world”
There are two aspects, language and facts in the world.
“The sun is shining” is true IFF the sun is shining.
By the Law of Non-Contradiction, it is logically impossible for the fact in the world i) the sun is shining and the fact in the world ii) the sun is not shining.
However, in language, the Law of Non-Contradiction does not apply to the propositions “the sun is shining” and “the sun is not shining”.
===========================================================================
Quoting Relativist
It depends whether you have a belief in Determinism, where it would be a necessary fact, or had a belief in Indeterminism, where it would be a contingent fact.
Looks daunting. I'll see if I can get through it.
You demonstrate the problem with possible world semantics very well, right there. The nature of possibility is such that it is impossible to give "precise truth-conditions for modal claims". That's the fundamental reality of what is referred to by "possibility", it violates the basic truth conditions of the law of non-contradiction, or the law of excluded middle. This was demonstrated by Aristotle with examples like the possible sea battle.
So possible world semantics attempts to do the impossible, give "precise truth-conditions for modal claims". It's far better that we respect reality, and deal with possibility with strategies like "probability", than to proceed under the sophistic illusion of "precise truth conditions" which is created by possible world semantics.
Quoting RussellA
I don't know Lewis; principles too well. Do you think that it's possible for the different individuals referred to by "us", live in different possible worlds? How would we be able to communicate, and make sense of the things around us, when contradictory things would be true for each of us? Without the unity produced by agreement, could there be an "us"?
It appears like Banno is trying to hijack the thread to enforce his own brand of modal sophistry when the SEP clear indicates three distinct types:
[quote=SEP] 2. Three Philosophical Conceptions of Possible Worlds[/quote]
The three are:
Concretism: possible worlds are understood as concrete worlds with internal spatial temporal relations.
Abstractionism: possible worlds are understood as abstract "states of affairs", or similar terms like sets of circumstances, etc..
Combinatorialism: a world consists of particulars, relations between them, and also "facts", which are a representation of the particulars and their relations.
Contradictory propositions cannot both be true 'at the same time and in the same sense. I was responding to your statement that the propositions needed context. I was pointing out that modality is also relevant.
Quoting RussellA
It doesn't require believing in determinism, it depends on believing only that the rising of the sun is a consequence of deterministic laws of nature, and that the prior history of the universe is a given (a history that may include contingent events).
A rich and interesting topic.
In Kripke’s theory of naming, the same name refers to the same object through time because of a causal connection of that object through time, such that Aristotle in 350BC is the same individual as Aristotle in 384BC.
However, the object in 350BC had the properties named Aristotle, a teacher, born in Stagira, bearded, etc, whilst the object in 384BC had the properties named Aristotle, not a teacher, born in Stagira, not bearded, etc.
There may appear to be a causal chain between these two objects, but as David Hume pointed out, there is no necessary connection between two events that appear to follow each other.
How does Kripke get around a name being a rigid designator when it is not known that in a causal chain one event necessarily follows another. For example, being a rigid designator would require there was a necessary connection between two events.
Also, if the set of properties of an object changes with time, how is it decided which are essential properties and which are not. For example, why should one’s parents be more essential to the identity of a person rather than their moral character.
For Lewis, possible worlds are absolutely separate, causally, temporally and spatially.
No individual in one possible world has any kind of access to any individual in a different possible world.
I agree, the propositions “the sun is shining” and “the sun is not shining” cannot both be true by the law of non-contradiction if referring to the same event in the world.
This cannot be correct. If each possible world is separate from every other, in an absolute sense, then there would be no point to considering them, as they'd be completely irrelevant.
So, it's kind of clear that you aren't reading along. Can you remedy that?
For Lewis’ Concretism, these possible worlds are concrete worlds.
Perhaps that why the SEP article Possible Worlds wrote:
Perhaps this is why the SEP article follows Lewis' Concretism with 2.2 Abstractionism, where possible worlds are abstract entities rather than concrete ones, .
If there is no causal connection sometime in history, in what sense are they possible?
Quoting Relativist
On the other hand, I can imagine a possible world that is as concrete as ours, where the Hobbits, Trolls and Orcs that inhabit this world believe themselves as real as we believe ourselves.
But we also know that there is no causal, spatial or temporal connection between this possible concrete world of Middle Earth and our actual concrete world.
This is not saying that Middle Earth exists within literature within our world. I am not saying that Middle Earth is an imaginary world, but I am saying that Middle Earth is a possible concrete world, as concrete as our world.
It is because of the fact that there is no causal, spatial or temporal connection between Middle Earth and our world is why we can say it is a possible world.
If there was a casual, spatial or temporal connection to our world, we would know whether this world of Middle Earth existed or not, thereby negating its very possibility.
There is a difference between saying “there are possible concrete worlds other than ours” and “possibly there are concrete worlds other than ours.”
I think I am right in saying that Lewis is saying that “there are possible concrete worlds other than ours” rather than “possibly there are concrete worlds other than ours”
What would make such a world POSSIBLE? IOW, how do you account for its existence?
Another way to ask this: what is it that establishes the truth of the statement, "there is a possible world in which Hobbits, Trolls and Orcs exist"?
What's with the nonsense frank? Honestly, your posts directed at me are ridiculous. If you think I'm off topic of the thread and a distraction, then please report me to the mods, and have me removed. Thank you.
Quoting RussellA
Yes, the possible worlds are concrete worlds, that's what the SEP calls concretism, but how are they absolutely separate? If a person like me, in this concrete world can describe another concrete world, then I must have some access to it, and it cannot be absolutely separate.
Quoting RussellA
The words you use to describe that imaginary world have meaning derived from your experiences in your concrete world. This implies that things within the two worlds have some similarity. How can there be that type of similarity without some sort of spatial temporal consistency, or continuity, between the two? The spatial temporal conditions of one must be similar to the spatial temporal conditions of the other, implying that there is a connection between them.
Not mine. Standard definitions for modal logic.
"Meta-worlds" sounds like virtual reality? Not too familiar with it. The question of 'where"possible worlds exist is answered differently by different folk. Given that we are talking about possible worlds, they are in the domain of discourse and so we can quantify over them and they exist in that sense.
Not within the logic. We might do that when we give the edifice an interpretation.
Quoting Ludwig V
Yep. Have a look at your question. See how it is about Aristotle? there is a possible world in which Aristotle was given a different name. Who was given the different name? Aristotle.
In w? there is an individual named Aristotle. In w? that individual is named Barry. w? is accessible from w?. Therefore, in w?, ?(Aristotle was named Barry)
Something that I'd like to draw your attention to, Ludwig, is the size of the argument here. It's worth mentioning that the argument does not include anything outside of what is needed in order to shoe the point. It's quite discreet. To a Wittgensteinian ear, that might be important. The grand theories we are discussing from the article - counterpart theory and so on - work on a somewhat different scale to the actual arguments philosophers usually use.
Anyway, note that the name of that individual in w? - Aristotle - is used as a rigid designator in order to stipulate the very same individual in a different possible world in which he is called Barry. See how the designation w? functions in this game? It's the from where that the rigid designation is fixed.
Since @Ludwig V quotes this, I might address it.
In Lewis' system, each world is spaciotemporally distinct - that is how they are defined. SO there is no "place" in which they hang out together.
But for my part, the idea of a world occupying a space appears to be a category error. What space is the Universe in? I don't think that question can be made to work.
That was the topic of my Honours thesis.
Quoting RussellA
Yep. Spot on. It needs to specify w?.
And yet, here it is.
If that is what Aristotle claimed — and that reading is itself highly questionable — then Aristotle was wrong. He lacked the resources to do better. You do not.
Yep. Guilty as charged. I'm trying to discuss Possible World Semantics, and the three interpretations of it that are listed in the SEP article.
But again, it's not My brand of modal sophistry. It's the standard, accepted logic of modality.
Kripke did not fill out his theory of reference. Never did.
It was offered only as an example of how references might be fixed apart from a definite description. At the time his audience would have bee somewhat incredulous; this kid (he was a teenager when he published the first few articles) saying that Russell's logic was wrong.
So he suggested a possible (!) alternative, more as a rhetorical tool than a tight bit piece of argument.
I hope we might leave the theory of reference to one side - we have enough distractions. But I might just suggest that there does not appear to be any reason to think there must be One True Account of reference - there may be many ways in which we can use a proper name. What is salient is that Kripke and Donnellan showed that proper names do not always and only refer in virtue of an attached definite description.
I think you're alluding to modal logic as a formal system. One can utilize the formal system to go through the mechanics of the logic, without committing to possibilism/actualism much less necessitarianism/contingentarianism.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You'd think the penny had dropped... but:
Quoting frank
Yep. And
Quoting Relativist
Fucksake.
No allusion. I was quite specific.
Quoting Relativist
Yep. I've pointed this out, several times. see for example
Quoting Banno
Quoting SEP
I'd sugest you go back and read that section.
Again, that's explained in AW1.
But you claim to have read and understood that... :roll:
How can you expect to be taken seriously?
So I think we move on?
Me neither. I'm just ignoring him at this point.
Quoting Banno
:up:
Quoting Banno
All I mean by "meta-world" is, basically, some world where all possible worlds exists. Based on the definitions given wrt AW1, that seems impossible, because possible worlds exist maximally, and a "meta-world" would connect possible worlds, hence not maximal, hence a contradiction.
Quoting Banno
I'm curious what those answers might be. It seems you're suggesting that worlds can and do "exist" in some sense (they can be quantified over in the domain of discourse). Is this different from how things exist in worlds? And does that not introduce a conflict with how we describe existence?
Also, I happen to disagree greatly with this idea of worlds being defined spatiotemporally. I think existence behaves more abstractly beyond that, but I'm willing to discuss in those terms.
One last word on intensionality for Abstractionism, concerning that paragraph about methodology.
We saw earlier how speaking roughly, the intension of ? is the rule that tells you what ?’s truth-value would be in every possible world. At issue now is, which is to be master?
The concretist starts with worlds as given (from AW1) and treats intensions as derivative: once we have worlds, an intension is just a way of tracking truth across them.
The abstractionist reverses the order. Intensionality, understood as truth-at-a-world, is taken as basic, and possible worlds are introduced as whatever is needed to make sense of modal variation.
My own intuition is that the disagreement is not about whether worlds or intensions exist; it’s about which we take as explanatorily primary. Seen this way, the two positions, concrete and abstract, are complementary rather than contradictory: they are different “perspectives” on the same metaphysical landscape. That it's more a difference about how we say it than about what is being said.
Yep. Nice.
Quoting QuixoticAgnostic
It's a neat point to put pressure on. The simple answer is that the possible worlds are in w?, the actual world. But all this means is that it is we, in this world, who are talking about them and quantifying them, and they are in our domain of discourse.
What looks a bit paradoxical is actually a recursion. That recursion enters when we describe all possible worlds from the standpoint of a particular world — that’s the “loop” that looks tricky, but it isn’t a real contradiction.
An interesting point, though.
We already read through the truth conditions in the SEP article. And, I showed how the stated conditions of truth are impossible to completely fulfil. There is a big difference between being able to state truth conditions, and being able to fulfil the stated conditions. But whenever fulfilment is close, the correct result is probable, and we can pretend to have satisfied the conditions.
Truth as described in possible worlds semantics is actually impossible, and there ought not be any pretense to it. So topological semantics, and probability theory (instead of truth and falsity) are proving to be much more productive in applications like AI.
It seems you're saying possible worlds are relative to actual worlds. So we can speak of the possible worlds based on our actual world, and presumably, if any of those worlds were the actual world, we'd be a possible world to them. The question I have then is about the scope of possible worlds, and what exactly their metaphysical claim is to reality.
I want to say that because possible worlds have no greater claim to existence than our actual world, the whole "possibility space" of worlds can be said to exist, but that's not all that exists. It wouldn't be everything because the possibility space is relative to our actual world, and one could imagine a world, by Alien Properties arguments, that is completely orthogonal to how our world is. If the world is completely unlike our world, then it is unlike any possible world, yet we can't claim it does not exist because no world has a greater claim to actuality than any other. The only way would be to deny that there could be a world that is completely unlike our own, but I'm not sure how one would argue that.
Does this account of possible worlds subject us to so-called "impossible worlds"? Is that the point, perhaps, that there exist plentiful worlds out there beyond our reach, and it's only those within our reach that we can call possible? Because I don't have any problem with such impossible worlds existing, but it seems to wander from the spirit of using possible worlds in the first place, although I can't articulate where it goes wrong at the moment.
I'll have to ponder this
I think I understand where you're coming from, but my attempts to get people to understand where I'm coming from haven't gotten traction. I'll start a new thread with my issues, and let you carry on here.
The logic itself is (almost) metaphysically neutral. The concrete approach is one interpretation among many. And the answers to your questions will depend on what approach is adopted. Alien Properties are intriguing, but the response will very much depend on what else one accepts. It's not difficult so much as complex.
Impossible worlds. Have a look, but we might here stick to the present article.
As you wish.
Quoting Relativist
Quoting Banno
On the account given here we make sense of existence within worlds. Frodo is a Hobbit - h(a). By existential generalisation there is something that is a hobbit - ?(x)(h(x) - which can be read as "something is a hobbit" or as "hobbits exist".
There is a world w whose domain contains at least one object satisfying each of the predicates hobbit, troll, and orc.
The claim that “there is a possible world in which hobbits exist” amounts to nothing more than the claim that the predicate hobbit is satisfied by at least one object in the domain of some world. No commitment follows to hobbits existing outside that domain, nor to their being actual, concrete, or real in any further sense.
Yes, there can be more than one valid performative utterance about a particular subject.
Oh, yes. I'm happy to respect the distinction. I may not always understand it.
Quoting QuixoticAgnostic
That's not quite what my analogy of the bookshelf of possible worlds proposed. It is the descriptions of all the possible worlds that exist in our world. What the descriptions describe or refer to is something else. Where they exist, in my opinion, is not a question that has an answer. Compare this question with "What happened before the Big Bang? Where did the Big Bang happen?" It is not possible to define a framework that could enable a normal answer to be given. Similarly, but differently, those questions about Middle Earth are unanswerable. Fiction is a curious and paradoxical business. It works very hard at what we might call verisimilitude while at the same time denying that anything in them is real - except, confusingly, those elements of reality the authors insert into the fiction. Our ability to immerse ourselves in these worlds ought to be astonishing, but is too much part of our everyday lives to be noticed as such. It's no wonder that sometimes people don't know where the boundaries are.
Quoting RussellA
Yes and no. A name is not like a tag, though a tag is, in some ways, very like a name. Both serve us as ways of identifying things and people. But what maintains the connection between name and named is the use of both. It is handed down from one person to another, and that is the connection Kripke identifies. But this means that anyone using the name needs to know what and who Aristotle is, so it is very odd to say that the link between name and named exists even if no-one know about it. It seems plausible because we - the audience - know what we need to know.
Quoting RussellA
I find that remark almost impossible to understand. Such understanding as I have of it rests on my knowledge of who and what Aristotle is.
Quoting Banno
Yes, I get that. But that gives w? a special status that differentiates it from all the other possible worlds. I suppose, though, that one could point out that for someone in that different possible world in which he is called Barry would make the same claim, with the names reversed. So who a name refers to depends on what world one posits as the world of origin. My question is, whether the system can work without positing some world as the world of origin.
Quoting Banno
I wouldn't argue with any of that. The idea that there may not be One True Account of reference seems very plausible to me.
Quoting Banno
Quite so.
Quoting Banno
I am assuming that each possible world will have a similar recursion and therefore be capable as functioning as a world of origin. Yes?
Quoting RussellA
I've puzzled about this a great deal. Can you explain the difference to me?
Quoting Relativist
Why isn't a copy of the book(s) enough?
The truth of a possibility in language cannot be established using a correspondence theory
Using Donald Davidson’s truth-conditional semantics:
“There is a possible world in which Hobbits, Trolls and Orcs exist” is true IFF there is a possible world in which Hobbits, Trolls and Orcs exist.
If Determinism is true, there can only be one actual world, meaning that there cannot be possible worlds.
If Indeterminism was true, there can still only be one actual world, again meaning that there cannot be possible worlds. Ontologically, where could possible worlds exist even in an indeterminate world?
Therefore, possible worlds in language cannot correspond to possible worlds in the world.
The truth of a possibility in language can only be established using a coherence theory
From Wikipedia Cohrence (Linguistics)
Therefore, if we can coherently talk about the possibility of Hobbits, Trolls and Orcs, which we can, then this is sufficient to ensure the truth or falsity of our statements.
You are not describing this other concrete world, you are describing what this other world could be like as a concrete world.
==============================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In the same way that between the fictional world of Middle Earth there is no causal, spatial or temporal connection to our world other than in our mind.
Quoting Banno
Ambiguity is not evidence of truth, therefore I think the conclusion you make about kripke is false.
Kripke produced what appears to some people, as truth conditions for modal claims. But when philosophers have tried to substantiate this supposed truth, they've had to interpret it in many different ways, none of those ways produces anything acceptable. Clearly that's because Kripke did not do what you claim that he did.
As I've shown, it is impossible to do what you claim that Kripke has done. Possibility and truth are fundamentally incompatible. And that's why the mathematically based semantics which uses probability rather than truth is proving to be a much more effective tool for modeling modal statements.
Quoting RussellA
Not according to concretism as described by the SEP. The possible world is as described, and each possible world is concrete. Therefore the description is of what the concrete possible world is like, not of what it could be like.
[quote=SEP]Call this the concretist intuition, as possible worlds are understood to be concrete physical situations of a special sort.[/quote]
Notice, the physical situation is concrete. It's not a possible situation in a concrete world.
Quoting RussellA
That's a very significant connection. Don't you think so?
As I understand Kripke’s theory of naming, my knowledge of Aristotle is not directly tied to the reality of Aristotle in 350 BCE, but is tied to where I learnt about Aristotle, which could have been a TV program five years ago. The producers of this TV program in turn could have got their knowledge about Aristotle from Jonathan Barnes’ book “Aristotle”. Jonathan Barnes also got his knowledge from somewhere. There is a chain going back in time from my knowledge of Aristotle to the reality of Aristotle in 350 BCE.
Therefore
1 - For me, the name Aristotle is a tag to what I learnt about Aristotle.
2 - For me, I don’t know the reality of Aristotle in 350 BCE, all I know is what I have learnt about Aristotle.
3 - There is a reality to Aristotle in 350 BCE, even though I may not know what it is.
4 - I agree that we only know what we know.
===========================================================Quoting Ludwig V
Yes, you only know what you know about Aristotle.
I think that there is common agreement that Aristotle was around in 350 BCE, even if no one knows exactly what he was doing at the time.
===================================================================
Quoting Ludwig V
De re and de dicto
A de re proposition could be “Paul's favourite number 11 is necessarily prime. A de dicto proposition could be “it is necessary that Paul's favourite number 11 is prime”.
There is a difference between saying i) “your favourite drink is necessarily a hot drink” and ii) “it is necessary that your favourite drink is a hot drink”
Modal Logic K Distribution axiom
?(p?q)?(?p??q).
If "p implies q" is true, then if p is necessarily true, q is also necessarily true
The given example
i) “Your favourite drink is possibly a hot drink” presupposes you have a favourite drink
ii) “It is possible that your favourite drink is a hot drink” does not presuppose you have a favourite drink
iii) “There are possible concrete worlds other than ours” presupposes that there are other concrete worlds
iv) “Possibly there are concrete worlds other than ours” does not presuppose that there are other concrete worlds
At the end of the day, It would be logically impossible to describe something that has no causal, spatial or temporal connection to us.
======================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, the mind is central.
There is a causal, spatial and temporal connection to the fictional world of Middle Earth, through books, films, etc.
But there is no causal, spatial or temporal connection to an actual world of Middle Earth, as we have no knowledge about it having any mind-independent existence.
That, I believe is why concretism is unacceptable. We produce a fictional idea, a possibility, then to make it fit within the possible worlds semantics, we assign concrete existence to it. This is unacceptable, to arbitrarily, or for that stated purpose, assign concrete existence to something completely imaginary. It demonstrates quite clearly the deficiency of possible worlds semantics. To conform we must accept what is unacceptable.
I have never been to Chicago, but I imagine what it could be like, and I imagine it as an actual concrete place. I can imagine that the inhabitants of Chicago think of themselves as actual and concrete as I think of myself as concrete and actual.
There is no logical problem with imagining something as being actual and concrete.
For example, if you plan on a holiday to somewhere you have never been before, you presuppose that where you are going is an actual and concrete place. As with David Lewis, in this instance, you are also a Modal Realist, a Concretist.
Is the difference between declaring what's true versus learning what's true? Maybe both sides of that are wrapped up in an if/then statement.
If Nixon lost the election, then what?
Answer: He might have continued practicing law in the private sector.
I declare a world where he lost, then ponder and learn the results. Or it could go the other way:
What do we have to do to change the tire?
Answer: in the possible worlds where we change the tire, we might have retrieved a lug wrench.
Is that what you mean?
Thanks for the clarification, but it provides a good reason for many of us to reject it - since it depends on coherence theory of truth. Obvious objections:
[I]"May not a paranoid's delusions of persecution be frighteningly coherent? May not a patient's faith that a mere placebo is a wonder drug be therapeutically useful? Russell was quick to claim in opposition to Joachim that multiple systems of beliefs may be internally consistent, though incompatible with each other. Nietzsche had already suggested well before James that false beliefs may be not merely useful but indispensable for life. "[/i]
--Truth -PRINCETON FOUNDATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY ; Burgess & Burgess, pg 3
Kripke had a more nuanced theory, but it strikes me as a move to rationalize possible world analysis.
At any rate, anyone who chooses to take possible world analysis seriously ought to understand the dependency on coherence theory of truth.
Quoting Ludwig V
The book establishes a fiction. We could examine this fictional world for coherence, and draw valid inferences if (and only if) it is, but the inferences are all qualified by, "within Tolkien's fictional world...". But no unqualified objective truths can be inferred.
And critically- nothing here establishes the hobbit world (in toto) as anything more than a fiction, so calling it a "possible world" is misleading.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There's a lot you and I disagree about, but I 100% agree on what you said here.
1. What you learnt about Aristotle enables you to refer to Aristotle - to use the tag. (Remember - what preserves the causal chain is people using the tag.)
3. Yes. It is that reality that enables Kripke to pass off "rigid designation" as a real thing. It is what enables other people to think of Aristotle even when a parrot or speaking machine says Aristotle. Nonetheless, the link is established by the continuous use of the name by people who understand it.
Quoting RussellA
That's perfectly clear. Thank you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, we don't have to assign existence to it. All we have to do is to imagine or suppose that it exists.
Quoting RussellA
Quite so.
Quoting Relativist
I wouldn't disagree with any of that or with the familiar point that none of those uses or benefits is a substitute for truth.
Quoting Relativist
That's true so far as it goes. But the existence of the book does establish that there is a fictional world in which.....
Quoting Relativist
I agree that there is this difference between a fictional world and a possible world, that the possible world might or might not exist - become actual, if you will, but we know that the events in LOTR could not possibly take place. On the other hand, many stories seem entirely possible - and there are docudramas. Characterizing the verisimilitude that is required to persuade us to suspend our disbelief is not easy. Aristotle, if I remember right, uses a word that is translated as "plausible". Is that better?
Yes, but the same could be said for any so-called "possible" world one entertains with the semantics. If I had my way, we'd distinguish between fictional and possible worlds.
Quoting Ludwig V
Only if it pertains to the future, and is consistent with the history of the world up to the present, and everything else we know about the world.
However, when entertaining counterfactuals about the past or present, the implication is that this counterfactual world could possibly have happened. But could it? This is analyzable and debatable. It's a very different debate if we're simply examining the coherency of a fictional world.
Regarding plausibility: that just seems an epistemically weaker form of possible, and could apply to either fictional and (truly) possible worlds. Perhaps it's equivalent to epistemic possibility: [i]as far as I know (implicitly based on my internalized beliefs), it is possible.
That's the role of w?. You answered your own question, I think.
Quoting Ludwig V
I've again got "A nice derangement of epitaphs" in the back of my mind here. A reference is successful if the enterprise in which it is involved is a success.
Quoting Ludwig V
Yes.
This rather depends on how one understands "determinism".
Determinism is a thesis about law-governed evolution within a world, not about the space of logically or metaphysically possible worlds. Even a perfectly deterministic world can be one among many possible worlds, perhaps differing in their initial conditions. Determinism only blocks alternative futures for this world, not alternative worlds altogether.
You pretend your already repudiated arguments were adequate. They are not.
The idea is somewhat ill-formed, but it's related to the idea that some differences make no difference. I need to think on it some more.
Yep - treating it as a possible world, and truth as true-in-a-world.
Quoting Relativist
"unqualified" is problematic; we can take this world, the one we are in, to be w? and then define truth simpliciter as true-in-w?. And note thatin w? it is true that in Tolkien's world Frodo is a hobbit...
Quoting Relativist
Yes. This is a different point, further complicating the issue; that since in the actual world Tolkien developed Frodo as a fictional character, we might decide that Frodo is necessarily a fiction - a fiction in any possible world in which he occurred. What this would mean is that were we to come across a small hairy man with nine fingers who was a friend to the elves and wizards, that would not be Frodo, because he is actual and Frodo is a fiction.
Fun, isn't it?
No!
What you learned is irrelevant. You heard someone use the word Aristotle, and you started to use the word; and crucially, you would be talking about Aristotle even if what you think you know about him were completely wrong.
Quoting Ludwig V
Yes! And that alone!
If you overheard the bloke on the TV say that Aristotle Taught Alexander, and assumed he meant that Aristotle taught Alexander Graham Bell, and that was all you knew about Aristotle, you would be mistaken, and importantly, you would be mistaken about Aristotle. The reference works despite all you know about Aristotle being wrong.
So its not "What you learnt about Aristotle enables you to refer to Aristotle"!
I don't disagree. I made the connection because I thought the analogy/similarity between fictional worlds and possible worlds made it easier to understand the latter. I underestimated the difference.
Quoting Relativist
Well, "it is possible" does pertain to the future, because it is in the future that the possibility resolves. If it is possible that I win the race, I win or lose the race in the future. Past possibilities - "it was possible" - are, by implication resolved and I have already won or lost. I do think that, like probabilities, the future is part of the concept.
Quoting Relativist
It is tempting to agree that counter-factual is a possibility. But the game of alternative history suggests that a counterfactual does not contemplate a possibility, but an event, whether it is possible or not. "How would things be now if Hitler had won the war?" Since he did not, it is not possible that he did. Yet somehow we can contemplate that eventuality and build a coherent story from it.
Quoting Banno
I'm glad you agree with my answer. It gives me confidence that I'm not thinking rubbish.
Quoting Banno
I wouldn't quarrel with that. I wish I could get hold of the article, but the only source I found wants £55 for a copy.
Quoting Banno
So each world serves as the origin of its transworld identifications. Which world is the origin depends on which world we are in. Each world is the actual world in that world.
Quoting Banno
I think that works for this case. But fictions are a varied bunch, so a story about a real or possible person in our world might well count as a possibility and what you say here wouldn't apply. What about stories that mix real and fictional characters and/or places?
Quoting Banno
H'm. I'm working this out as I go. You have a point. But I'm inclined to say that other people would take me to be talking about Aristotle. I, on the other hand, don't know what I'm talking about. But there is an objectivity here. The interpretation of people in general determines what is the case, so it is not wrong to say my deviant use is wrong.
Quoting Banno
But surely the causal chain is a chain of people learning to use Aristotle in that way. I agree that one person does not determine anything.
Quoting Banno
Yes. But the causal chain is a chain of people learning to refer to Aristotle correctly. Isn't it? What else could it be?
Yep, and we need not be referring anybody or anything at all for it to be meaningful, as Wittgenstein said we must not confound the meaning of a name with the bearer of the name.
Quoting Banno
So....treating it as a possible world, even though it's not possible.
Quoting Banno
Doing what you suggest is inconsistent with correspondence theory of truth - the Frodo statement is not "true" under this theory. You may have a different theory of truth, but we can each draw the same inference. I would retain the context: it is true that in Tolkien's fictional world, that Frodo is a hobbit.
Quoting Banno
On the contrary: it is more straightforward, certainly for anyone who accepts correspondence theory (like the majority of philosophers).
[Quote] in the actual world Tolkien developed Frodo as a fictional character, we might decide that Frodo is necessarily a fiction ....[/quote]
It would require some analysis to make the case that it is necessarily a fiction. The same analysis is appropriate for any so-called "possible world": we want to make the judgement as to whether a "world" is possible, necessary, or impossible. Even a metaphysically impossible world could be internally coherent.
Modal statements can be made about the past present and future. Possibility entails contingency. We typically regard future facts as contingent - there is a set of possible outcomes. A present state of affairs may also be contingent: consider where you live today - it's a fact that is contingent upon a past choice, from among a set of possibilities.
Quoting Ludwig V
The counterfactual COULD be a possibility - if what actually occurred was contingent. This would mean that there was something about the past event that could have been different. If no relevant fact could have differed, then what occurred was necessary.
Regarding Hitler: some have suggested that if Germany had developed the Atom Bomb earlier, then Hitler would have won the war. Was the timing of their research truly contingent? Maybe not, but that is the way to think about it.
Here's what seems to be a truly contingent fact: the precise time at which a beta-decay occurs - the time at which the nucleus of an atom emits a beta particle. The exact time is due to quantum uncertainty. If the clock could be rewound. perhaps the time of the decay would differ.
Quoting Ludwig V
This conflates possibility with potential. It's true that, given what occurred, the counterfactual is not possible. But the question is whether or not what occurred was necessary or contingent.
Yep.
Quoting Ludwig V
Yes, I think so. The point - lost on some - is that the logic is much the same. Quoting Ludwig V
That'd just make yet another possible world, with some characters in common with our own...?
Quoting Ludwig V
That you do not have at hand a definite description of Aristotle does not make your reference fail. The person you are mistaken about is Aristotle... the reference still works, even in near-complete ignorance. Indeed, there are examples in the literature of reference working in complete ignorance.
Maybe have a read of section X of Donnellan's Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions - the Thales example.
The word "learning" is problematic. It'd be better to say "the causal chain is a chain of people using the name to refer to Aristotle correctly.
“Learning” smuggles in a representational picture: as if what is transmitted along the chain is a mental grasp of an object. That’s exactly the picture Wittgenstein is trying to loosen. On his later view, what is transmitted is not knowledge of a bearer but participation in a practice. Hence my suggestion.
What, exactly, is not possible?
Quoting Relativist
Have you an argument to go along with that? And what of it - we are using Tarski's semantics, not correspondence.
I probably should not have mentioned the fiction argument at present. It works by rejecting maximal consistency, which has it's own consequences. They may be treated as partial, consistent worlds. Poor pedagogy on my part. But it's were we might go....
Well, my question is how to tell the difference between necessary and contingent. It seems that any contingent statement becomes necessary if the relevant conditions hold. I don't see that distinction as particularly interesting.
Quoting Banno
I'll have a look at Donnellan and see. There's something going on here that I haven't pinned down.
Quoting Banno
Oh dear! That was so far from my intention that I lost sight of the possibility. I thought everything that I said emphasized knowing how to use the term.
Quoting Banno
It wasn't your fault. I brought the topic up, in my innocence. But I think the issue here is what the limits of possibility are and the complication is that there are different limits at different levels. For example, it is not physically possible that the sun does not rise in the morning, but it is logically possible. Whether it is possible to imagine such an event is different again.
It's good - it brought out another aspect into my response to the article. The SEP article presumes maximally complete worlds, but the logical work these theories are actually used for does not require maximality.
Perhaps we don't need a theory about the nature of possible worlds in order to use modal logic to regiment modal discourse. An open rather than a close approach.
Wikipedia Naming and Necessity has the comment
For me, the Aristotle I know has a cluster of properties. Even though “Aristotle” is a rigid designator, and refers to the actual Aristotle born 384BCE and died 322 BCE, none of the properties I know Aristotle by may in fact be true.
However, Kripke argues for necessary a posteriori knowledge, that some truths can only be known through empirical observation. Therefore, even though my knowledge of Aristotle may be totally false, when I use the name Aristotle, it is still a rigid designator because the name still refers to the actual Aristotle.
It so happens that I think that many, though not necessarily all, questions about the nature of things are ill-formed, because what is meant by nature is not well-defined in the relevant context. So I am extremely comfortable with that approach.
Quoting RussellA
So is the name "Homer" a rigid designator in this case?
Wikipedia - Homer,
Wikipedia Homer notes
If everything I know about Aristotle is false, how do I know that Aristotle actually existed, or is in fact a fiction.
If Aristotle, and perhaps Homer, never actually existed, yet Aristotle and Homer are rigid designators, then what is Aristotle and Homer actually designating.
Using Kripke’s necessary a posteriori, it may be that in the future it is known without a doubt whether Aristotle and Homer were real or fictional. We may only know in the future what Aristotle and Homer are designating.
Wikipedia Rigid Designator
Wikipedia
However, if in the future it is discovered without doubt that Aristotle and Homer were not real but fictional, then today what is Aristotle and Homer designating? Presumably in that case, the names Aristotle and Homer are designating descriptions of Aristotle and Homer.
:up:
Yes, there are many different definitions of truth (SEP - Truth). The question of what establishes the truth of a statement then depends on which definition of truth is being used.
And the one being used in the article is Tarski’s Truth Definition.
:up:
The place signified "Chicago" is not an imaginary thing, it is understood as real, actual. In the case of possible worlds, they are imaginary things, not real or actual, but possible. The analogy is incorrect.
Quoting Ludwig V
That would be very interesting if you could explain a reasonable difference between these two. The former would be an actual predication, the latter would be an imaginary predication. Is that what you're saying?
Well, Homer is the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey. So presumable "Homer" designates that person whoever he may be. The difficulty is not just that someone else wrote those epics, but that they were a) not written down (until long after they were created) and b) not created by a single author. The poems were part of an oral tradition in which each poet created their own version(s), so b) our ideas of authorship and texts do not apply in that culture. I wouldn't press this as any kind on knock-down argument here. It's just an interesting conundrum.
`
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It's easier than that. Existence is not a predicate. I'm not quite sure whether being imaginary counts as a predicate, but there's no doubt that "imaginary" excludes "exists". What does exist (in our world) is the account that people give of what they have imagined. Whatever has been imagined would then count as a possible object, and so existent in another world, not this one. Yes?
This statement needs unpacking.
The first part of the statement, “The place signified "Chicago" is not an imaginary thing” is from a mind-independent viewpoint.
The second part of the statement, “it is understood as real, actual” is from the viewpoint of a mind.
The first part of the statement linguistically clashes with the second part of the statement, making it difficult to answer.
==============================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Again, this statement needs expanding. “For whom”?
For Lewis’ Concretism, the statement is true from our viewpoint, in that from our viewpoint, these worlds are imaginary worlds, not real or actual.
But the statement is not true from the viewpoint of those people living on these worlds, in that from their viewpoint, these worlds are not imaginary worlds, are real and actual.
Continuing:
1) Suppose a single person originated the Iliad, which was either written down or passed down as part of an oral tradition.
2) Whoever originated the Iliad has been given the name “Homer”.
3) Suppose, in fact, that the Iliad was originated by Hesiod.
4) Hesiod had a friend, Homer, who was in fact a baker.
Does the name “Homer” designate Hesiod, as for Kripke’s Rigid Designation, or does “Homer” refer to “the person who originated the Iliad”, as for Russell's Theory of Descriptions?
Frodo existing in (or interacting with) the real world, because he's fictional.
Quoting Banno
Here's my statement that began this line of discussion: "The book establishes a fiction. We could examine this fictional world for coherence, and draw valid inferences if (and only if) it is, but the inferences are all qualified by, "within Tolkien's fictional world...". But no unqualified objective truths can be inferred.""
You objected to my reference to "unqualified" objective truths. I was referring to a correspondence theory of truth. So my argument is simply that there is nothing in the actual world corresponds to Frodo, or hobbits in general.
My broader issue is that there's no obvious means of distinguishing between a fictional world (like Tolkein's) and a non-actual possible world (a non-actual world in which a contingent event actualized differently than it actually did).
[Quote]And what of it - we are using Tarski's semantics, not correspondence.And what of it - we are using Tarski's semantics, not correspondence.[/quote]
First of all, you've been referring to indexicality, which is beyond Tarski (as far as I can tell, from both the the article you linked and my book on Truth theories) but I get it that this makes sense in terms of the article. But we're discussing any and all aspects and issues with the two articles referenced in the Op.
Strictly speaking, Tarski's approach is mathematical - and it works well with mathematical systems. However:
"To extend Tarski's definition to any large fragment of extra-mathematical language is...not easy."
- Truth: Princeton Foundations of Contemporary Philosophy, Burgess & Burgess, p 88
The difficulty is a consequence of the fact that Tarski's theory deals with language/semantics. Tarski defines "formally correct" this way:
For all x, True(x) if and only if ?(x), where True never occurs in ?
This actually does apply to correspondence theory, which is deflationary. Deflationary theories are based on the equivalence principle:
It is true that snow is white iff snow is white
The italicized words are a proposition. The bold words describes a state of affairs in the world. It fits Tarski because "true" is not an aspect of the world; it is strictly an aspect of propositions.
But that's incidental.
Most importantly, I'm raising issues entailed by the thesis discussed in the article, not debating what the article says. By contrast, it appears you think the discussion should be limited to trying to understand the articles - is that correct? I think this also fits your disagreement with Metaphysician Undercover.
,
As usual. you reject my arguments because they are inconsistent with what you believe, without even addressing the the truth or falsity of the premises, or the validity of the argument. Look:
[quote=SEP]Say that M is the “intended” interpretation of ? if (i) its set W of “possible worlds” is in fact the set of all possible worlds,[/quote]
Possibilities are infinite, so we cannot have "the set of all possible worlds", as required for the truth conditions. That is impossible because any proposed set will be incomplete. We will never have the true actual world (M), therefore the stated truth conditions for possible worlds semantics are necessarily violated, truth cannot be obtained.
Quoting Ludwig V
But you used it as a predicate, when you said that one could imagine that something exists. otherwise its a verb, but that becomes even more difficult, to explain the activity which is referred to as "exists".
Quoting Ludwig V
Yes, but concretism would have the other world exist as well. That's when it becomes problematic. The only place the other (possible) world exists is in the mind, because it is a fabrication, a mentally produced possibility. But now we have to say that this mental fabrication has actual concrete existence.
Quoting RussellA
I don't see you complaint. Both parts are "from the viewpoint of a mind". In the first part the mind is using the word "Chicago" to refer to something believed to be independent from that mind. The second part describes that independence as "real, actual".
Quoting RussellA
I really don't see the problem you are alluding to. A statement is made from the perspective of the one who makes it, unless the person signifies that this is supposed to represent a different perspective. Then it would be an imaginary perspective. We could make a statement about the perspective of a person in a different imaginary world, but that would still be a statement made from the perspective of the person making the statement, and that person would be stating an imaginary perspective.
So it's still an imaginary perspective. We can't get to the point of having a real perspective from an imaginary world. If a person in the imaginary world could talk to you, and describe the perspective, that would just be your imagination describing the perspective. And if a person in the actual world describes a different perspective to you, that is a perspective from the actual world, not the imaginary world. So there is no way that we can get to the conclusion that the people in an imaginary world have a real and actual perspective.
, , keep in mind that a rigid designator only refers to an individual in those possible worlds in which that individual exists.
If Homer didn't exist, then "Homer" doesn't refer to anyone.
Indeed, but very clearly what is being used in modal logic is a semantic theory of truth.
Quoting Relativist
Well, we can use Kaplan's account, if you like. It's an extension of the semantic theory of truth that does deal with indexicals.
Quoting Relativist
Nuh. It's not deflationary. It's very much one of the substantive theories of truth.
The core problem with what you are saying seems to be that you are trying to use the correspondence theory in the place of the semantic theory, and bumping up against the problems this causes.
Nuh. I reject your arguments because they are muddled.
Take:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It contains at least a half-dozen compounding errors. There are infinite sets, and indeed uncountably infinite sets; and we can give truth conditions for those sets. Consider ? and ?. These sets are not "incomplete" - you trade on an ambiguity here. M is not the actual world, as you think, but an interpretation of a modal system. A model M is an ordered structure ?W, R, V?, and the actual world is a distinguished element w?W. Kripke prooved that K, T, S4, and S5 are both complete and consistent, so truth can be "obtained" (your term) for those systems.
You are still looking for epistemic truth in a semantic system.
You haven't followed what is going on in the SEP articles.
No, I identified the core problem in my prior post, but you didn't read my entire post:
Quoting Relativist
I'll add that you never stipulated that you were limiting the discussion. I'm also surprised you didn't pick up on the context of our statements. If this broader context wasn't of interest to you, there was no need to comment on what I said.
Quoting frank
I've said previously that before we embark on a critique of the implications of possible world semantics, we need both a strong grasp of modal logic and an understanding of the main theories concerning its application. That's what I have been doing. I don't think what you have said demonstrates such a grasp on your part.
Again, it seems to me that what you are doing is attempting to critique modal theory, which is based on semantic theories of truth, by replacing that basis with a correspondence theory. It's no surprise that this doesn't work.
I'm more than happy to consider the consequences of possible world semantics. Indeed, with others here, we have been doing just that. But not by first misunderstanding it.
Here's what Burgess and Burgess have to say:
[I]
“What do the different views called ‘deflationist' all have in common, to make them all deflationist?” itself admits no easy answer. Deflationists are, however, typically committed to three theses about the phrase “is true,” usually called the natural language truth predicate....First, applying the truth predicate to something is equivalent to just saying it. [B]One version of this equivalence principle is embodied in Tarski's T-scheme[/b]"[/i]
This is essentially what I was passing along.
Tarski's theory is incomplete because it doesn't directly deal with the world, or we could say it leaves it open. Correspondence theory does exactly that.
I'm no expert on Tarski, so I asked Claude, "Is correspondence theory of truth consistent with Tarski's theory? Here's the response: [i]
"Yes, they're quite compatible. Tarski actually saw his work as a formal vindication of the correspondence theory.
Tarski's semantic theory of truth provides a rigorous, mathematical framework for understanding what makes sentences true. His famous T-schema—"Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white—captures a correspondence intuition: a sentence is true when it corresponds to how things actually are.
However, there are some important nuances:
Where they align:
. Both involve a relationship between language and reality
[I]Where things get complicated:
[List][i]
[*]Tarski was deliberately austere—he avoided metaphysical commitments about what "facts" or "correspondence" really means
[*]His theory works entirely through formal semantic machinery (satisfaction, reference), not by invoking a substantial relation of "correspondence"
[*]Some philosophers argue Tarski's theory is actually deflationary rather than correspondence-based, since it doesn't explain why or how language hooks onto reality—it just systematically pairs sentences with their truth conditions[/i]
[/list]
[I]So you could say: Tarski's theory is consistent with correspondence theories and often seen as their formal implementation, but it's neutral enough that deflationists also claim him. The key question is whether you think giving truth conditions via the T-schema constitutes explaining correspondence, or whether it merely describes truth without explaining the metaphysical relation that makes correspondence hold.
What's your sense—does the T-schema capture what correspondence theorists care about?"[/i]
Me: "I think that you are overlooking truthmaker theory, which is both deflationary and is a correspondence theory"
Claude:[i]
"You're right to call that out—I was being too binary. Truthmaker theory is a great example of how these categories can overlap in more sophisticated ways than I suggested.
Truthmaker theory can indeed be both deflationary (in accepting something like Tarski's T-schema without adding metaphysical bloat) and a correspondence theory (in insisting that truths require grounding in reality—that there must be something in the world that makes true sentences true).
The key insight is that truthmaker theorists accept the T-schema while adding a substantive constraint: for every truth, there must exist some entity (a truthmaker) whose existence necessitates that truth. This gives you correspondence—truth depends on how reality is structured—without the traditional correspondence theory's commitment to facts as special ontological items or to a mysterious "correspondence relation.
So I was wrong to suggest correspondence theories must reject deflationary elements or that deflationary approaches can't involve real metaphysical commitments about truth's dependence on reality. Truthmaker theory shows you can be minimalist about truth's definition while robust about truth's metaphysics."
Correspondence theory is not a deflationary account. The t-schema is trivially true. It's not a definition of truth in the way correspondence is.
:up:
Correspondence is not a deflationary theory of truth. Tarksi is compatible with any theory of truth worthy of consideration. Whether it counts as a deflationary theory is a subject of some considerable discussion, but Tarksi thought not.
I don't see how introducing yet another theory - truth makers - is illuminating.
Can we move on?
You're right. I'll stick with the specific theory I embrace: truthmaker theory. Truthmaker theory is a correspondence theory, but it includes some deflationary truths (specifically: truths about mere possibilities). But overall, it's not deflationary.
Note the correction. I was trying to be too general. Truthmaker theory is my theory of choice. It is correspondence, but in general it is not deflationary.
Why, when the article we are reading clearly uses the semantic theory, and with good reason, is this even worth mentioning? I prefer pistachio nougat - but it's not relevant to this thread.
Truthmaker theories aren't theories of truth. They're theories about truthmakers.
This confirms that you did feel the only correct topic of discussion was the correct interpretation of the article. I considered my points worth mentioning because they are issues that arise from this theory. The Op did not set boundaries on what should be discussed (not that many of us actually honor the supposed topic of the Op for the life of a thread). You decided what the boundaries are, and that you would respond to everyone on that basis.
Quoting Banno
I'm identifying issues with SOME OF THE WAYS possible world semantics is applied. That's not at all a critique of modal theory. Modal theory is not equivalent to possible world semantics. It's a convenient paradigm for analyzing counterfactuals. Modal theory concerns modal truths (what is necessary, possible, impossible) under various modalities (epistemic, conceptual, physical, metaphysical, and others). When I've brought up these issues, you had the choice of replying to the issue I raised, or not. What you did was to simply tell me I was wrong, because what I said was inconsistent with the article.
Admittedly, I've made some mistakes along the way. When shown my mistakes, I acknowledge them. Breaking your boundaries is not one of them.
Can you give an example?
Here's a quote from the SEP article on The Correspondence Theory of Truth:
[I]"The correspondence theory of truth is often associated with metaphysical realism. Its traditional competitors, pragmatist, as well as coherentist, verificationist, and other epistemic theories of truth, are often associated with idealism, anti-realism, or relativism. In recent years, these traditional competitors have been virtually replaced (at least in terms of publication space) by deflationary theories of truth and, to a lesser extent, by the identity theory (note that these new competitors are typically not associated with anti-realism). Still more recently, two further approaches have received considerable attention. One is truthmaker theory: it is sometimes viewed as a competitor to, sometimes as a more liberal version of, the correspondence theory.[/i]
------------------
Truth- PRINCETON FOUNDATIONS OF CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY, by Alexis and John Burgess is a book that surveys a wide variety of Truth Theories. The book covers Tarski, vaieties of Deflationism, Realism, and Anti-Realsm. Truthmaker theory is classified under Realism.
Chapter 5: Realism, section 3 is titled "Truthmaker Theories" (plural).
______________
Stephen Mumford's book, "David Armstrong" summarizes Armstrong's comprehensive metaphysical system, and refers to Armstrong's truthmaker theory as a "theory of truth".
It's more nuanced than I've indicated. A more rigorous description is here: Truthmaker Theory
Correspondence theory says truthbearers correspond to truthmakers. Truthmakers are central to correspondence theory.
As that article you just linked says, it's not clear how what's being called truthmaker theory is significantly different from traditional correspondence.
You say “The place signified "Chicago" is not an imaginary thing, it is understood as real, actual.”
The fact that I imagine the city of Chicago to be a real and actual place, means that the city of Chicago is in addition also an imaginary thing in my mind.
===========================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I cannot know that people in other possible worlds are real, but I can theorise that they are.
I can never know for certain that the person I am talking to is as conscious as I am, but I can theorise that they are.
It seems that the caravan has moved on while I was away. But thank you both for making me think through what I was saying.
Quoting Banno
Your ability to amuse me with your ridiculous straw manning never ceases to amaze me. Again, you take your own error "muddled" arguments (here represented as "epistemic truth in a semantic system"), and you pretend that your error is mine. For example, defining an infinite set as "complete" only creates a muddled mess of contradiction.
Quoting Banno
You still completely ignore, and disrespect the second truth condition stated by the SEP. The one I've quoted three or four times now. The actual world of the modal system must "in fact" be the actual world. Here is the complete package of conditions:
[quote=SEP]Say that M is the “intended” interpretation of ? if (i) its set W of “possible worlds” is in fact the set of all possible worlds, (ii) its designated “actual world” is in fact the actual world, (iii) its set D of “possible individuals” is in fact the set of all possible individuals, and (iv) the referents assigned to the names of ? and the intensions assigned to the predicates of ? are the ones they in fact have.[/quote]
@Banno, until you accept the real necessity of "(ii) its designated “actual world” is in fact the actual world", you will never understand the real epistemological problems of modal logic, and why there is so many distinct interpretations. Look:
[quote=SEP 2.2.3]For abstractionists, however, actuality is a special property that distinguishes exactly one possible world from all others — the actual world is the only world that happens to obtain; it is the one and only way things could be that is the way things as a whole, in fact, are. However, for most abstractionists, the distinctiveness of the actual world does not lie simply in its actuality but in its ontological comprehensiveness: the actual world encompasses all that there is. In a word: most abstractionists are actualists.[/quote]
The reason for so many different interpretations, is because it is impossible to make "possibility" as we understand it, consistent with "the truth about the actual world of empirical observation", as we understand that. These two are fundamentally incompatible as Aristotle decisively, and irrefutably demonstrated thousands of years ago. In modern times this incompatibility is known as the uncertainty principle. A fundamental particle cannot have a true, actual location (this implies not moving), and also have the possibility of moving, at the same time.
The multitude of interpretations arise from the attempt to establish compatibility between two incompatible ideas. Human beings are very creative, and industrious, so they will keep trying more and more different ways, never succeeding. They will not succeed because the two are incompatible, and the only way to understand the both of them properly is to model them separately, in a dualist way, with a form of mediation between them.
Quoting Banno
I think I've followed very well. I see section 2 as proposing three distinct interpretations of possible worlds semantics, each of these being insufficient, due to the problem described above. You seem to want to focus on one, the abstractionist interpretation, as if it is the only acceptable interpretation, not allowing for the possibility that it is just as faulty as the other two.
Quoting Banno
Sure, replace correspondence with some other theory of truth. That is just a move of ignorance, denial of the problem, which is the fact that the mode of "possibility" is inconsistent with "the truth about the actual world of empirical observation". Remove yourself from the relevance of the truth about the actual world of empirical observation if you like, but then what good will your logic serve? I mean, you might argue that predictive capacity is far more useful than truth about the physical world, but then why not go to a probabilistic semantics of modal logic. That makes far more sense. Instead, you want "possible worlds", which pretend to assume some sort actual world of fact, yet not respecting that as the basis for "truth". What kind of muddled nonsense is this?
Quoting Relativist
The problem, as I indicate above, is that it is a pretense to correspondence. That is the problem I mentioned earlier, of replacing intension with extension. Correspondence becomes simply a stipulation, instead of criteria for judgement. The actual world of the modal model "is" the actual world of fact, because this is stipulated as a necessity for truth.
So, "snow is white " is true if and only if snow is white. Yes, now we stipulate "snow is white" (or in the case of possible worlds, the actual world of the modal model is stipulated as in fact the true actual world), and voila, "snow is white" is true by stipulated correspondence, and the actual world of the modal model is true, by stipulated correspondence. But of course, we can all see that this is just a pretense of correspondence.
Banno seems to be trying to deny the pretense of correspondence, to claim some other basis for "truth" in possible worlds semantics. Clearly this is just denial, as reference to "in fact the actual world", in the truth conditions, indicates that truth is based in correspondence. Correspondence by stipulation ("snow is white" is true because snow is white) becomes very problematic, so Banno wants to deny that it's even a part of the modal semantics of possible worlds.
Several ideas are introduced here, one being to obtain.
Obtaining is something a state of affairs does. In other words, I can conjure a state of affairs that does not obtain. The distinction between an obtaining state of affairs and a true proposition is kind of fuzzy. The early Bertrand Russell said they're the same thing:
Quoting SEP
But we generally draw a distinction between them with a proposition being the content of an expression (or hypothetical expression), and a fact, or state of affairs, being a complex of things and concepts.
So when we say abstractionists are actualists, this means they hold that any state of affairs that obtains, is a resident of the actual world. The actual world itself is a set.
"[I]A congruence theorist holds that a truthbearer and what it corresponds to are both structured complexes, and that when one corresponds to the other, there is likeness of structure, and correspondence of components to components."[/i]
Truthmaker theory allows for truthmaking to simply be logically entailed by simple existents.
As I said, it's subtle.
My understanding of 2.2.3
There are Concretists such as Lewis and Abstractionists such as Plantinga.
For the Abstractionsists:
There is the actual world, an actual world, a State of Affairs that exists and obtains.
There are possible worlds, non-actual worlds, States of Affairs that exist but fail to obtain.
Most Abstractionalists are Actualists.
There are two types of Actualists, Trace Actualists and No-trace Actualists.
The problem with No-trace Actualists is that they cannot explain standard modal semantics, in that it is possible that for some x, x is an Exotic. But for the No-trace Actualists, there is no x.
There are two types of Trace Actualists, New Actualists and Haecceitists.
Trace Actualists can explain standard modal semantics, in that things, whether objects or properties, do exist in possible worlds. It is possible that for some x, x is an Exotic (so different to an actual object that no actual object could be an Exotic)
It is possible that on the table is an apple. There is a possible world where the apple is on the table.
For the New Actualists, the apple necessarily exists, but is not necessarily concrete. The apple is only contingently concrete.
For the Haecceitists, such as Plantinga, even though in a possible world the apple does not exist, the property “being an apple” does exist.
For Trace Actualists, things in possible worlds can exist. This allows the modal semantics of (23) ??xEx is true if there is a world in which ?xEx
Any truth theory could be considered stipulation, although one is free to examine various theories and choose the best, or least offensive. It seems untenable to just abandon any concept of truth.
Correspondence isn't intended to be a criteria for judgement. Judgement is epistemological. Rather, correspondence is the conceptual basis for what truth is. Truthmaker theory is a specific form of correspondence theory that more specifically stipulates that the correspondence is between a proposition and an element of of the actual world, called the truthmaker.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There's more to the analysis:
It is true THAT snow is white IFF snow is white
The italics phrase reflects a proposition; the bold phrase represents an element of actual reality. It is assumed these meanings are clear, and that there is a distinction between a proposition and actual reality, and that truth entails that the proposition (its meaning) mirrors the element of reality.
If you don't like this view, then what view do you think better captures the concept of truth?
.
See how the sentence you keep quoting begins with "Say that...".
Why?
Here's the whole paragraph:
Quoting SEP
See how the single line you quote is part two of four of the antecedent of a mooted definition of true-in-M that is being true in any arbitrarily selected world. The conclusion is the opposite of what you suggest: any world might have been chosen to take on the place of the actual world, with the same result.
For those reading on, Meta isolates (ii) (“its designated ‘actual world’ is in fact the actual world”) and treats it as if it were doing independent semantic work. That is a mistake.
Again, there Might be a point Meta could be making, but his utter inability to understand and use the formal logic here incapacitates his expressing his view. Meta might be gesturing at a familiar philosophical concern, namely that the appeal to an “intended model” smuggles metaphysics into what is advertised as a purely semantic account. To make that objection, Meta would have to distinguish object-language truth conditions from metasemantic stipulations, recognise the difference between fixing a model and evaluating formulas within it, and understand how conditional definitions work in formal semantics. There may be a point Meta could be making, but his inability to understand and use the formal logic prevents him from expressing it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, Meta. I haven't moved past it because i keep answering your silly quibbles. My bad, yes, i should go back to ignoring you.
Yep. We might be clearer about Plantinga’s view. It's not primarily about properties like “being an apple”. It is about individual essences (haecceities). For Plantinga very individual has a haecceity (e.g. being that very apple), and haecceities exist necessarily, and oddly it seems worlds contain haecceities whether or not they are exemplified. So in a world where the apple does not exist, the haecceity "being that apple" exists, and is unexemplified. That haecceity is what does the semantic work for quantification.
All of which looks quite contrived to my eye. Not keen on Plantiga's approach.
Quoting RussellA
Isn't it more that ??xEx is true if there is an accessible world in which ?xEx can be represented? Roughly, if we can posit, or perhaps talk abuot some world in which ?xEx?
It seems to me that Plantiga takes a way of talking and turns it into a thing. Suppose I say that I might have had an apple for breakfast. Plantinga would say that the apple I might have had necessarily has a thing that makes it what it is, and that this thing is what I might have had for breakfast. It would be ridiculous to say that there is an apple that I might have had for breakfast, and Plantinga tries to avoid the ridicule by replacing that apple with a haecceity-of-apple, as if that were any better.
Perhaps something like this sits behind @Metaphysician Undercover's confusion, or @Relativist's disquiet. Something like it seems to underpin the essentialism that the forum Thomists misuse.
How do you address the ontology of the hypothetical apple? Is it a mental state?
I don't think Plantinga would say that. He's an essentialist, so he believes that apples are an essential kind, and an individual apple has a unique essence that makes it the particular apple that it is. He would say there's a possible world in which you ate this particular apple (transworld identity is associated with individual essence), and also there's a possible world identical to this one except the apple you ate was a different one (a different essence).
I take issue with essentialism. Transworld identity requires it.
No. The apple can't be a mere mental state because we are now each talking about the very same apple, and your mental states are not my mental states.
It has to be something shared, or at least public.
My view isn't all that firm yet, but I've mentioned to @Ludwig V that I think all three views suffer from the same error in that they presume maximally complete worlds. I don't see that as needed, and what follows might be a more ad hoc and constructive approach.
We talk as if there were an apple. That's just one of the many games we play with words. And that's related to the counts as... stuff from Searle; we just do talk about apples in this way, like we talk about property and credit, none of which are things in the way the apple in the fruit bowl is.
For Plantinga, individuals are identified across worlds by their haecceities, not by their kind membership, a “different apple” in another world isn’t just a different instance of the same kind; it is a different haecceity. The semantic machinery that lets us say “I could have eaten this apple” relies on the haecceity of the apple, even if it is unexemplified in that world.
Your reading of Plantinga is through a kind-essentialist lens: i.e., the identity of transworld apples is determined primarily by kind. Plantinga’s haecceity-essentialism is individual-specific, not kind-specific. It’s not “an apple of kind K in another world,” it’s “the very same apple’s haecceity in another world,” which may or may not be instantiated.
So do you conflate kind-essentialism with individual (haecceity) essentialism? Plantinga’s machinery is much more fine-grained, tracking this very apple, not “an apple of the same kind.”
Basically his use of haecceities looks to me to be reworking the problem rather than solving it.
My own view is kin to this, except I think we each treat the world around us as an interlocutor. The set of all things I might have had for breakfast is an aspect of expectations I have about the way the world is. I don't fall into a private language problem because the world is there to test me.
I don't think there's really enough talk between us humans to cover all the sets I have at my mental fingertips.
I'm probably wrong about Plantinga being a kind-essentialist, I don't recall him making those claims. Nevertheless, it seems to me a possible world in which you eat a different apple depends on kind-essentialism - the essence of what an apple is.
No.
We need to take care here.
Here is a way in to talk about essences that make sense: the essence of some individual is those properties that it has in every possible world in which it exists.
Here's a way to talk about essences that is somewhat obtuse: the essence of something is that which makes it what it is and not another thing.
Here's a complication on the latter: we can call the thing that makes something what it is, its haecceity... And the italics are there to mark the hypostatization, the presumption that what makes a thing what it is, is yet another thing...
Muddle on muddle, compounded mud.
Quoting Relativist
How to make sense of this? A possible world in which I didn't eat a different apple to the one I didn't eat for breakfast? :chin:
I didn't eat an apple for breakfast, and yet it's not the case that this is the apple that I didn't eat for breakfast. Plantinga wants this to be the apple I didn't eat - he wants there to be a particular uneaten apple in some possible world.
Plantinga would respond that haecceities are primitive - they don't reduce to qualitative properties (including kind-properties). But this makes transworld identity mysterious; he inevitably smuggles in kind-essences when reasoning about counterfactuals.
The apple is an apple, with no need for essence or haecceity or other bloody philosophical obfuscation. And there is no particular apple that I didn't eat for breakfast, despite my not having eaten an apple for breakfast.
That's coherent, but it doesn't say much.
Suppose the properties that comprise an individual essence is comprised of this maximal set: 100% of the individual's intrinsic and relational properties at every point it time that it exists. There is a relation to everything that exists in this world, and therefore the set of possible worlds in which the individual exists is just the one: the actual world. I suggest this is the base case - because it does clearly identify an individual.
Going beyond the base case: if we wish to make the case that the the individual exists in non-actual possible worlds then we would need to identify a subset of this maximal set of properties that are necessary and sufficient If there is haeecity, that could be it. But why even think there is haeecity? And that seems to be your point here:
Quoting Banno
Agreed. The theory that there is haecceity is logically posterior to the assumption that there is something that makes each thing what it is. A set of necessary and sufficient properties would also do the trick, but my sense is that there's no consistent means of culling down the maximal set I mentioned. This relates to the problematic quote of Kripke's I gave earlier:
"Really, adequate necessary and sufficient conditions for identity which do not beg the question are very rare in any case. Mathematics is the only case I really know of where they are given even within a possible world, to tell the truth. I don't know of such conditions for identity of material objects over time, or for people. Everyone knows what a problem this is. But let's forget about that." N&N p43
I don't think we should forget about it.
To my present understanding:
If I say “the apple might be on the table”, then there is a possible world where the apple is on the table.
Following (23) ??xTx is true if there is an accessible world in which ?xTx, it is possible that for some apple, the apple is on the table is true if there is an accessible world in which for some apple, the apple is on the table.
As you say, we need to specify what kind of worlds we are talking about, and may decide to limit possible worlds to those worlds that have the same natural laws as ours. The SOA, the apple is on the table, may exist even though it does not obtain. One advantage of the Trace Actualists is that a State of Affairs (SOA) may exist even though it does not obtain.
Here, “exist” is being used in a particular way. This has a different meaning to ordinary language, where exists means obtains.
For Wittgenstein in The Tractatus, if a SOA obtains then it is a fact in our actual world. Then it is a fact that the apple is on the table.
However, if in our actual world the proposition “the apple is on the table” is false because there is no apple on the table, the proposition “the apple might be on the table” is true because there might be an apple on the table, prescribing accessible worlds as having the same laws of nature as ours.
Therefore, in order to accommodate modal semantics, even though the SOA the apple is on the table does not obtain, the possibility of there being an apple on the table requires some kind of existence.
The New Actualists solution is that the apple exists in a concrete sense. Even if not necessarily concrete in an actual world, contingently concrete in a possible world.
The Haecceitists' solution, as for Plantinga, the apple exists in its haecceity, both in the actual world and all possible worlds. This haecceity is not Platonic Realism, where the property of appleness exists even if never instantiated by an apple. This haecceity is not that of mental abstract concepts independent of any physical manifestation.
Heicceity is an historic term, going back to John Duns Scotus in the 13th C, who proposed that although an object is no more than its set of properties, haecceity makes the object unique and different to any other object.
The idea was continued by Leibniz in his Principle of the Identity of Indiscernables, where even though two objects sharing the same properties must be identical, they remain unique and different to all other objects because of their haecceity.
For Plantinga, every entity exists and has a unique haecceity, a primitive “thisness” that cannot be reduced to anything else, and has this haecceity even in those worlds where the entity does not obtain.
Then how to explain Plantinga’s haecceity as something that exists in a mind-independent world, especially as he is neither proposing Platonic Realism nor suggesting that haecceity exists as a mental concept.
How can the haecceity of an apple exist in the world even though no apples exist in the world?
Perhaps the answer to this may be given by those who believe that numbers are discovered and not invented. I personally believe that numbers are invented in the mind. However, there are those who believe that numbers are discovered in the world, such that the number 9 exists in the world even though never instantiated in the world. In this sense, numbers may also have an haecceity.
If there were, problems would arise. Suppose an haecceity of Theseus’s ship existed in the world even though Theseus’s ship did not obtain in the world. We know that parts of Theseus’s ship can be removed. Then for every possible configuration of Theseus’s ship there world be a different haecceity in the world, becoming infinite in number.
Even if Platonic Realism is dismissed, haecceity as a mental concept can be understood, but Plantinga is suggesting the haecceity of an individual exists in a mind-independent world even in the absence of that individual.
The fact that Alvin Plantinga is a Christian philosopher, and a defender of theism, may take the nature of his haecceity into the spiritual realm and away from the material realm. But that is another story.
"I might have had an apple for breakfast" (a) is puzzling when we ask which apple I might have had for breakfast, and then we wonder about the ontology of the hypothertical apple as if it were a kind of apple. We understand "I might have had that apple in the bowl" (b) for breakfast without positing an hypotherical apple; we even understand "I might have had one of the apples in the bowl for breakfast" (c) without positing hypothetical apples. The puzzle lies entirely in the difference between (a) and (b) or (c). (a) is perfectly comprehensible until you ask the follow-up question which apple you might have had. The question doesn't have the context that would enable an answer. Brutally, there's no such thing as a hypothetical apple; there are only hypotheses about apples.
Quoting RussellA
We can ask whether this object is red or heavy or... We then notice that there is nothing to prevent something else having just the same properties. After all, a property is inherently something that can occur more than once. There is no guarantee that the same bundle will not occur again. But it is no help to posit yet another property and attributing to that property the magical capacity to be uniquely found in that object. It just makes another puzzle. In specific cases and contexts, we distinguish objects from each other in specific cases and contexts.
But there is nothing which you are calling "actual reality" in the modal model, that's the problem. "Actual" reality is simply stipulated, even Banno accepts this, as indicated below. So in the case of "It is true THAT snow is white IFF snow is white", the latter "snow is white" is simply stipulated. So the meaning of "It is true THAT snow is white IFF snow is white", is that "snow is white is true" if we stipulate that snow is white. "True" is already used, so it would be meaningless to say "It is true THAT snow is white IFF it is true that snow is white". So the latter "snow is white" is stipulated based on arbitrary or subjective principles according to whether you want "snow is white" to be true or not.
Quoting Banno
That's exactly the point I am making. The truth condition stated as " its designated 'actual world' is in fact the actual world" is never met, because "any world might have been chosen to take on the place of the actual world,". So the modal "actual world" is never "in fact the actual world", and the conditions for truth are never met.
Quoting Banno
Obviously the problem cannot be expressed in formal logic, because the nature of the problem is that it renders the formal logic as fundamentally unsound. To try and express it as formal logic would be a self-defeating exercise, because accepting it's rules is implied by using it. Instead, to demonstrate the problems of formal logic, we must show that the absurd conclusions it produces are because the logic is faulty.
But if you know about the problems of possible worlds semantics, as you claim here, then accept it, and reject possible worlds semantics for what it is, misleading sophistry.
Quoting RussellA
The glaring problem I see with abstractionism is that the entirety of the observed, empirical world, cannot be captured by "states of affairs". This is due to the reality of change, activity, and motion. If we assume that the world could be captured as states of affairs, we end up with Zeno paradoxes. So, as Aristotle demonstrated, "being" (states of affairs) is fundamentally incompatible with "becoming" (change and activity). The changes, motion and activity which we observe in the world, cannot be described by states of affairs.
The demonstration is like this. If the world is describable as state A, and then it becomes state B, we can conclude that change occurred between A and B, We could then assume a state C as the intermediary between A and B and describe the change as state C, but this would imply that change occurred between A and C, and also between C and B. We could posit state D between A and C, and state E between C and B, but we would still have the same problem again. As you can see, this indicates an infinite regress, and we never get to the point of understanding what change, activity, or motion, really is. Activity, change, motion, is what occurs between states of affairs, when one becomes the other.
Because of this, Aristotle determined that we must allow that the nature of "possibility" is such that the fundamental laws of logic are violated by it. If at one moment, t1, an object has property X, and at the next moment, t2, it does not have property X, indicating change or motion, then to accurately understand what change or motion is, we must allow that either the law of non-contradiction, or the law of excluded middle is violated in the meantime, between t1 and t2. Either the object both has and does not have the property during this activity, or it neither has nor does not have the property during this change. Aristotle stipulated that we must not violate the law of noncontradiction, and opted for a violation of the law of excluded middle. This forms the basis for our current, common understanding of "possibility". The thing which is said to be "possible" is understood to to have a status of being neither what is the case nor what is not the case. As such, "possibility" cannot be understood through the application of states of affairs.
It is the reality that we perceive with our senses. You could say that we are stipulating this reality exists (=solipsism is false), but I suggest that we innately believe we are perceiving an external world. So this "stipulation" just reflects an abstraction of our innate world-view.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Same "stipulation": we are perceiving aspects of reality apart from oneself. We have perceptions of color, and of that cold, powdery stuff. We perceive these even without naming them, but by naming them we can reflect on them abstractly.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
We have named the perceived color of the cold powdery stuff, "snow" a stipulation in English, but the reference is the same for Germans, who have similar perceptions, but stipulate it to be "schnee". Again, this is grounded in our innate trust in the mental image of the world that our minds present to us.
Straightforwardly, we apply words to perceived objects, but by extension - we also apply them to abatract concepts- like "true". A plausible hypothesis: in our evolutionary history, we developed language - enabling cooperative behaviors. We could communicate perceived aspects of the world to one another. This also meant that we could recognize a discrepancy between what another person tells us, and what we perceive- a grounding for the twin concepts of true/false.
You said this to Banno:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I have given you a grounding for "actual world" that no fictional world can have: our direct interaction with it.
The world we interact with is represented abstractly in our minds, and this enables us to entertain variances to this abstract world image: the fictional worlds that get the (questionable*) label "possible worlds".
__________________
*I can rationalize use of "possible"in terms of different modality, but I'll defer for now. "Fiction" seems like something we could agree on.
Perhaps this is the case:
Ordinary language
In ordinary language, “it is possible that the apple is on the table”.
Possibility 3 - the apple is not on the table
Possibility 6 - the apple is not on the table
Possibility 9 - the apple is on the table
Possibility 12 - the apple is on the table
In 3 and 6, we are referring to something that does not exist as if it existed, which is a puzzle.
Therefore, the apple referred to in 3 cannot be the same thing as the apple referred to in 6, as non-existent things cannot be identical to each other.
Modal logic
(23) ??xTx is true if there is an accessible world in which ?xTx
Possible world W3 = ¬ ?xTx
Possible world W6 = ¬ ?xTx
Possible world W9 = ?xTx
Possible world W12 = ?xTx
In modal logic, rather than as in ordinary language referring to something that does not exist as if it existed, we can say x exists even if x does not obtain.
As with ordinary language, the x in W3 cannot be the same thing as the x in W6, as non-obtaining things cannot be identical to each other. Therefore, they must be uniquely different.
Plantanga proposed “haecceity” to account for this uniqueness of entities.
However, the world only exists at one moment in time, which is the present. The world cannot exist at two moments in time. Even our memories of the past exist in this present moment in time.
I agree that a State of Affairs can only capture one moment in time, but as the world can only exist at one moment in time, a State of Affairs is able to describe the world.
===============================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The world can only exist at one moment in time. At this present moment in time, the object does not have property X, and we have the memory that in the past the object had the property X. However, this memory of the past also exists in the present.
The Law of Contradiction would be violated if an object has the property X and does not have the property X at the same time. However, this is not the case. There is only one moment in time, and that is the present. In this present, the object does not have the property X.
The Law of Excluded Middle has not been violated, as the proposition “the object as it is in the present does not have the property X” is true.
At this present moment in time is my thought that it is possible that the apple is on the table. Possibility exists in this present moment in time, in the present State of Affairs. Possibility can be understood within the State of Affairs that presently obtains.
In the modal model there is a world stipulated as the actual world. It is obviously not the external world which we perceive. The reasons for the stipulation are fundamentally subjective. It may be intended that the stipulated actual world is a representation of the external world we perceive, but even so, that representation may be false in the sense of correspondence, because of mistake.
Quoting Relativist
When someone says "It is true THAT snow is white IFF snow is white", perceptions are completely irrelevant. Notice, it does not say "iff snow is perceived as white", and there is nothing to indicate that "white" refers to a perception.
Quoting Relativist
That would require a further definition. "White" would need to be defined as a specific type of perception. But that is not what is intended, as the intention is to avoid intension. So "white" is simply a predicate, and the predication "snow is white" is true if it is a fact that snow is white. We can thereby stipulate that snow is white (this is a feature of the actual world), then "snow is white" is made to be true, by the means of that stipulation.
Quoting Relativist
But that's not the grounding of possible worlds semantics, it is your personal choice, your grounding for "actual world". Other people could use other groundings because the stipulation of "actual world" is subjective.
Quoting RussellA
That is not consistent with empirical observations. We see activities, things moving. Therefore what we perceive as "the existing world", is a world in which time is passing, things are changing, and this is inconsistent with your statement "the world only exists at one moment in time".
Quoting RussellA
That the world exists at a moment in time, as a State of Affairs, is a faulty assumption. It is faulty because it is inconsistent with empirical observations, which indicate to us that time is always passing, and change is always occurring. That is why there is an uncertainty principle in physics.
I don't quite understand this. 3 and 6 appear to be identical; so do 9 and 12. So we are considering two possibilities.
"It is possible that the apple is not on the table" and "It is possible that the apple is on the table".
Both these sentences presuppose that there is some specific apple in question. Normally, one would work out which one from the context. But here, there is no context, so no clear interpretation of the sentences is available.
As they stand, the first sentence means "There is no apple on the table" which doesn't refer to anything non-existent and "There is an apple on the table", which refers to the apple on the table, which does exist.
So I don't see your problem.
The possible worlds could supply an appropriate context. But whether the apple in W3 is the same apple as the apple in W6 or the apple in W9 is the same as the apple in W12, - or perhaps the same apple is in question in all four worlds - is a question of trans-world identity. That's an awkward question, but at least we have a context that supplies an apple to be referred to. But I wouldn't be dogmatic about how all that works.
The general problem of non-existent objects has two facets. The only such objects that we can talk about are objects like "the present king of France" or "Pegasus" or "Clark Kent a.k.a. Superman". These are all defined in a context which gives the terms some meaning, while at the same time stipulating that their existence is confined to those specific contexts and excluded from what we are pleased to call the real world. It requires a certain mental gymnastics, but people seem to manage it, on the whole. Without some such conceptual device, I don't see how one can say anything at all about non-existent objects. They have to exist in some sense if we are to talk about them at all.
Quoting RussellA
So far as I can see, "haecceity" has no meaning beyond "the property that accounts for the uniqueness of entities". It is just a label for the problem.
Since non-existent objects don't exist, they can't possess haeccity". So it is doesn't help with non-existent objects. .
Nice.
Such an individual immediately brings about modal collapse, since p??p. What we have is further reason of rejection the notion of essence as resulting in incoherence.
Quoting RussellA
About a particular apple or not? Is it that there might be an apple - any apple - on the table, or that some particular apple is on the table? And then how, if it is possible that the apple is on the table, do we understand the haecceity of the apple being on the table but not the apple?
All this by way of mostly agreeing with you. Including the suspicion that Plantinga is misled by his faith.
What twaddle.
:rofl:
If your argument cannot be expressed clearly, then the obvious implication is that it is unsound. Again, S4 and S5 and derivatives have been shown to be complete and consistent. You appear to be simply wrong here.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
:lol: Have you thought of going in to writing the jokes for Christmas crackers?
maybe take care here, too. Why shouldn't a state of affairs list the positions some object occupies over time? As, 'The ball rolled east at 2m/s'?
Meta would have to disagree with this, because he can't make sense of instantaneous velocity, or of calculus or any sort of limit or infinitesimal in general. See the Christmas Cracker above, where Meta treats change as a series of static instances rather than as dynamic, and as a result discovers that motion is impossible. :wink:
Change cannot be reduced to a sequence of instantaneous states - but no one is claiming that.
From what I've seen, it does seem very likely that Plantinga thinks that there is a connection between his philosophy and his faith. But I'm pretty sure that there are Christians who accept his faith but not his philosophy, I suspect it is not really the faith that is misleading him, but good old-fashioned philosophical mistakes.
I looked this up. I see what you mean. His argument feels like a construction for a pre-determined outcome - as does his theodicy. Perhaps I'm being too black-and-white. Most likely, with Christians who indulge in philosophy, there is influence both ways.
I am not saying that time does not exist, but even if time does exist, there is only one actual moment in time.
Suppose a train enters a station at t1 and leaves the station at t2.
What does “we see things moving” mean?
At t2 we see the train leaving the station and at t2 we have the memory of the train entering the station at t1.
It cannot mean that at t2 we see the train leaving the station and then nip back in time to see the train entering the station at t1. Time travel is not possible.
It means that at t2 we see the train leaving the station and at t2 we have the memory of the train entering the station at t1.
It could. A State of Affairs could list the position of an object through time, such as on an Excel spreadsheet. But we look at this spreadsheet in our present moment in time. We don't need to travel through time in order to understand that the object had different positions through time.
Similarly with the proposition “the ball rolled east at 2 m/s”. We look at this proposition in our present moment in time. Again, we don't need to travel through time to understand that the object had different positions through time.
We only exist at the present moment in time, and have memories about the past.
I agree that haecceity is just a label for the problem. Though haecceity might be something other than a property.
In Ordinary language, when we say “there is no apple on the table”, we mean that the apple does not exist.
However in modal logic, the apple exists even though it does not obtain.
This makes logical sense, because the apple must exist in some sense if we are able to refer to it.
Yes, non-existent objects cannot have haecceity.
However, non-obtaining objects can exist, and it is these that have haecceity.
For Plantinga, even though there is no apple on the table, this apple can have haecceity.
A state of affairs isn't perspectival. The expression of a proposition will generally have the hallmarks of a certain POV, but a state of affairs is not an expression. A state of affairs that obtains is a fact.
As I see it:
Suppose in the world are the States of Affairs i) the apple is on the table ii) the apple is not on the table. These States of Affairs are not perspectival.
If the State of Affairs, the apple is on the table, obtains, then it is a fact. This is also not perspectival.
A State of Affairs exists even if it does not obtain.
A State of Affairs expresses a possible world.
When I say “the apple is not on the table”, this is perspectival from my point of view.
Then my proposition “the apple is not on the table” is false because the apple is on the table.
True, in ordinary language
Possibility 1 - the apple is on the table
Possibility 2 - the apple is not on the table
=====================================================
Quoting Ludwig V
In ordinary language, if “there is no apple on the table” is true, then there is no apple. The proposition is referring to something that is non-existent. This seems like a puzzle.
As you say “I don't see how one can say anything at all about non-existent objects. They have to exist in some sense if we are to talk about them at all.”
This is the problem that modal logic solves. The apple exists even if it does not obtain. If it exists then it can be included within modal equations.
==================================================
Quoting Ludwig V
Yes, in modal logic, if in W3 the apple exists but does not obtain, and in W6 the apple exists but does not obtain, is this the same apple or a different apple even though it is identical.
Plantinga suggests that the apples in W3 and W6 are different even though they may otherwise be identical. This is why he attaches a haecceity to each entity that exists.
This makes sense, in that how can two entities that exist but not obtain be the same thing.
In ordinary language, if x does not exist and y does not exist, how can there ever be the possibility of x and y being the same thing. This is why it becomes a problem for logic to solve.
I am asserting the very opposite of what you are saying. There is no "actual moment in time". Time is continuous duration, or flow, without any moments. You see the train enter the station, stop, passengers come and go, then the time leaves the station. Your proposals of t1 and t2 are just mental products, useful fictions, which are not at all representative of the real independent world.
Quoting RussellA
It means that the use of "t1" and "t2" do not provide the grounds for a true representation of the real world.
Quoting Banno
In your twisted mind, what does "state" mean?
The reason why "a state of affairs" cannot list "the positions" some object occupies over time, is because this is explicitly a compilation of a multitude of states. Therefore it is not "a state". Do you recognize the fundamental distinction between one and many? If not, you could read Plato's Parmenides, where he examines this distinction in his arguments against sophistry. This is why "one" was not considered to be a number by ancient Greeks. And, even now "one" is excluded from the primes because inclusion would render a meaningful definition of "prime number" as impossible.
And Merry Christmas to you Cracker Jack!
Do you mean that the apple that might be on the table does not exist? Clearly, there is not, in this world, any apple that might be on the table. That apple only exists in the possible world in which there's an apple on the table. If there are many apples that might be on the table, each apple will exist in a different possible world.
Quoting RussellA
No, this seems like a muddle. "There is no apple" needs a context to be meaningful.
Quoting RussellA
I don't know which apple you are referring to as "the apple". Are you using "does not obtain" to mean "does not exist in the actual world"? In general, IMO, the identity or difference of objects across different worlds depends on the specific details of the case. One cannot generalize.
Quoting RussellA
Yes, but you have to specify in which world these apples exist.
Motion, change, becoming, or activity, cannot be understood with the terminology of "states". This is because change is what occurs between states, therefore does not get described by "a state". To describe the change which happens between states, with another state, produces the need to describe what happened between those states, causing the appearance of an infinite regress, without ever addressing the issue of what "change" is, change being when one state ends and the next begins.
So, even if we take Banno's example "The ball rolled east at 2m/s", and consider this to be "a state", the next "state" might be "the ball rolled northeast at 1.5m/s. Notice, that what happens in between is not described. We can posit an intermediate state, "the ball was hit by a ball moving north". This still does not provide a description of the change. We could posit many more intermediary states, indentation of the ball, elasticity, difference in molecular activity, electrons, whatever, and all those intermediary states will never produce an understanding of the "change" which occurred between one state and another. So, the simple solution is to employ the concept of "force". There was an exchange of "force". But "force" is not a state of affairs, nor can it be understood as a part of a state of affairs, because it describes something about the relation between distinct states of affairs.
Now Banno will have you believe that a compilation of "states", such as "The ball rolled east at 2m/s'", since it is a compilation of distinct states, could have "force" included within that compilation. The rolling ball had a specific force. But of course, apprehending a compilation of states as "a state", is an ontological misunderstanding.
And Merry Christmas to all!
Your only direct and immediate knowledge of time is that of the present, the present moment in time. Within your present, you have memories of the past. You can theorise, hypothesise, that time is a continuous duration, but you have no direct or immediate knowledge that this is the case.
As I understand it:
In ordinary language we can say “there is no apple on the table”, so we seem to be referring to an apple that does not exist, which is a puzzle.
But we must be referring to something.
In logic, this problem is avoided by treating the apple as existing regardless of whether it obtains or not
The proposition "There is something that is an apple and this something is not on the table" can be written as ?x(P(x)?¬Q(x)) where P(x) means "x is an apple" and Q(x) means "x is on the table"
We can then refer to an apple that exists regardless of whether or not it is on the table.
Are you referring to concretism?("for the concretist, there is no special property of the actual world — actuality — that distinguishes it, in any absolute sense, from all of the others; it is simply the world that we inhabit.")
I agree that is a problem with concretism.
The problem with this is that:
There is no X on the table, for every conceivable X.
I suggest that it's simpler to semantically equate, “there is no apple on the table” with the fact that apples are not in the set of objects on the table.
Like most such arguments.
Quoting RussellA
Yes, it could, but if that were the only possibility then it would indeed be subject to Zeno's paradoxes.
There is a very profound difference between listing the position of the ball at, say, 1/10th second intervals, and saying that it has a velocity of 2m/s. The latter tells us were the ball is for any point we might choose.
There seems to be an unstated presumption that a state of affairs is how things are at some instant. But the logic does not make this presumption. The state of affairs can be how things re over time.
So it might say that the train arrived at t1 and left at t2.
I'm somewhat surprised to find myself pointing this out.
If that were so, then we could ask which apple is not on the table. But “there is no apple on the table” is not about an individual apple.
Quoting RussellA
But the sentence "there is no apple on the table” is not referring to an individual apple. And nor is it referring to the haecceity of some absent individual apple. It's not saying "There is an x such that x is an apple and x is not on the table", but that "for all x, if x is an apple then x is not on the table".
Formally, the following is invalid:
¬?x (A(x) ? T(x)) ? ?x (A(x) ? ¬T(x))
That might be true, when, for example, there is only one apple around or when I mean that the apple I'm holding in my hand. But ¬?x(P(x)?Q(x)) identifies a different state of affairs, which does not refer to any apples.
EDIT
I'm not saying that there is no problem about referring to non-existent objects. I am saying that this isn't it.
Quoting Relativist
Thank you. That's much better.
In this and what follows, it would pay to make clear in which world the apple exists. That was the bit we discussed way back where truth and existence are both relative to a world; sentences are true at a world, and things exist at a world. The addition of "obtaining" is unnecessary. It is a somewhat confused proxy of "actual", and a part of Plantinga's erroneous metaphysics, which treats actuality as a property rather than an index... in order, I might add, to procure a dubious ontological argument for there being a god.
The common error in ontological arguments is to treat existence as a predicate. Plantinga avoids treating existence simpliciter as a predicate, but reintroduces the same error by treating actuality and necessary existence as properties that do the existential work ontological arguments require.
Exactly.
And we might add that a state of affairs need not be at an instant, but may be over a period of time.
Yep. Whales evolved during the Eocene. That's a fact.
This apparently presumes only one possible world.
We cannot have a possible world in which (i) and (ii) are both true. We can have w? in which there is not an apple on the table and w? in which some apple is on the table. And here there is no contradiction.
We don't here need "obtain". Just that "An apple is on the table" is true at w? but not at w?; and so SOA? exists at w? but not at w?.
We may index our possible worlds by saying that w? is the actual world. Calling that "adopting a perspective" suggests an unneeded subjectivism. All we are doing is saying that we are speaking from w?
“The apple is not on the table” is true at w? and false at w?.
w? : The apple is not on the table
w? : The apple is on the table
w? : The apple is on the table
w?? : The apple is on the table
Notice that each of these refers to an individual apple. Part of the problem here is moving between the apple, with talk of an individual, and an apple, with talk of a kind.
We could have
w? : No apple is on the table. (no individual apple is specified)
w? : Some apple is on the table (an individual apple is specified)
w? : The apple is not on the table (an individual apple is specified - this could be true even if some other apple is on the table)
w?? : The apple is on the table (an individual is specified).
What we don't need here is the idea that the apple can exist yet not obtain. It might be that at w? the apple is elsewhere, or never grew, or event that there are no apples whatsoever. Talk of "obtaining" adds nothing to the logic. Nor do we need haecceity, unless you have an overwhelming need to prove that there is a god.
Nonsense. A state of affairs can set out what happens over time.
The term "state of affairs" is perhaps first found in the Tractatus, or in Russell. There is no indication in either Russell or Tractatus-Wittgenstein that a state of affairs must occur only at an instant, or that it cannot encompass temporal extension or change. The idea that states of affairs are instantaneous is your own addition.
:roll:
The "spectre" of the possible-but-not-actual appears to upset some folk. States of affairs are introduced as a way to deal with this discomfort. I don't share that discomfort. But if we take it seriously, it helps explain what is happening in 2.2.3 Actuality and Actualism
States of affairs are perhaps the descendent of the "logical space" of the Tractatus. There, Wittgenstein described a space in which objects could be arranged in any logical way - the apple on the table, or under it, or falling towards it, or whatever; of these various ways things might be arranged, one set is the way they are actually arranged. That arrangement is set out in his proto- first order language.
The actualist idea seems to be that possible worlds are different arrangements of the very same sorts of things we find in the actual world, and so those possible-but-not-actual things are in effect just rearrangements of actual things. Hence the puzzling suggestion in SEP that they hold that "Everything that exists in any world exists in the actual world". This by way of ameliorating the fear of the possible-but-not-actual.
That's why exotics are such a problem here. By their very nature they cannot be a mere rearrangement of the stuff in the actual world.
So Plantiga introduces haecceities in part as a way of explaining exotics. It's haecceities that get rearranged, rather than the objects of the actual world. And as a bonus he gets to prove to his own satisfaction that there is a god.
But for my part this is far too complex to be considered viable, in order to answer a problem that isn't really a problem.
How dose that sit with you as an explanation of 2.2.3?
So onward?
Going back to Possible World entry, it starts with the following:
“Anne is working at her desk. While she is directly aware only of her immediate situation — her being seated in front of her computer, the music playing in the background, the sound of her husband's voice on the phone in the next room, and so on — she is quite certain that this situation is only part of a series of increasingly more inclusive, albeit less immediate, situations: the situation in her house as a whole, the one in her neighborhood, the city she lives in, the state, the North American continent, the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, and so on. On the face of it, anyway, it seems quite reasonable to believe that this series has a limit, that is, that there is a maximally inclusive situation encompassing all others: things, as a whole or, more succinctly, the actual world.”
Is this not a fallacy of thinking, specifically, the fallacy of composition. Thoughts?
As I suggested earlier to @Ludwig V, there's no good reason to suppose this sort of completion.
And indeed, we have good reason to think that a formal system (at least, the ones that count) can be consistent, or it can be complete, but not both.
So I'd take it that what has gone wrong here is not the fallacy of composition so much as an assumption of conceptual completion.
Put simply, we do not need a description of the whole world in order to say that Anne might not have been at her desk.
But the three theories of Possible Words discussed in the article presume just this.
As I said, the present, as we experience it, exists as a continuous duration within which activity is occurring. The representation of the present as a "moment in time" is completely inconsistent with empirical observation, therefore a falsity.
Quoting Relativist
It's not only concretism but abstractionism as well. You are referring to the world we inhabit, (which I take as the independent physical world) as "the actual world". But this is not what "the actual world" refers to in possible worlds semantics. Look at the difference between "actual" and "concrete" in the SEP's account of abstractionism. SOAs may be actual or non-actual. "Actrual" means that it has been judged to obtain in the concrete world.
[quote=SEP] Importantly, SOAs constitute a primitive ontological category for the abstractionist; they are not defined in terms of possible worlds in the manner that propositions are in §1.3. Just as some propositions are true and others are not, some SOAs are actual and others are not.[28] Note, then, that to say an SOA is non-actual is not to say that it does not actually exist. It is simply to say that it is not, in fact, a condition, or state, that the concrete world is actually in. However, because ‘____ is actual’ is often used simply to mean ‘____ exists’, there is considerable potential for confusion here. So, henceforth, to express that an SOA is actual we will usually say that it obtains.
...
Note also that, for the abstractionist, as for the concretist, the actual world is no different in kind from any other possible world; all possible worlds exist, and in precisely the same sense as the actual world. The actual world is simply the total possible SOA that, in fact, obtains. And non-actual worlds are simply those total possible SOAs that do not.[/quote]
Quoting Banno
I agree that there is nothing to indicate that a state of affairs must be a moment in time, and I think that this is a false representation of "state of affairs", like what RussellA is proposing, the present consists of moments. A state of affairs may have a long or short duration in time. I dismiss "a moment" if this implies a point with no time passage, (RussellA's apparent approach) as fictitious. I do not dismiss "state of affairs" as fictitious, only as incapable of capturing the totality of reality.
Contrary to what you say here "a state of affairs" cannot encompass "change" without self-contradiction. The stated "state" must be unchanged for the specified, or unspecified period of time. If it changes then it is not the stated state. Therefore the state of affairs cannot encompass change. That the SOA could change, and still be the same SOA would imply contradiction.
So, we might try to avoid this and allow change within the SOA, with the most general statement about change, and say that a thing is in "a state of change". But that doesn't describe anything, and would be a useless SOA. And, once we identify a specific activity, and say that the thing is in the state of having this activity ("The ball rolled east at 2m/s"), then it cannot "change" from this without moving out of the descriptive capacity of the SOA. If anything about the ball's movement changes, the SOA no longer obtains and a new SOA would be required.
We might then describe a new SOA to match the changed situation (the ball rolled northeast at 1.5m/s), but that does not describe the change itself, how it passes from one SOA to the next. That is why SOAs are insufficient for describing the reality of change. Change is what happens between SOAs, and positing another SOA as intermediary (the ball was struck by another) still leaves change as what occurs between those SOAs. Looking for further intermediary SOAs implies infinite regress without ever describing change itself.
The important, and significant thing to notice is that "possibility" is a feature of the change itself, not the SOA. So if we want to understand the mode of "possibility" we need to look at what is intermediary to SOAs, and attribute "possibility" to that, rather than to SOAs. That's what the concept of energy does. As "the capacity to do work", "the energy" of a thing, or system, refers to the possibility that thing or system has, to effect change to an SOA.
I agree, although I think that concretism could be salavaged by appending a commitment to the existence of the actual world.
Sounds good.
We should look at combinatorialism. It's a bit more complicated, but I think it may provide the best approach out of the three. The problem which jumps out at me, is the issue with substantiating the proposed "simples". This idea of simples is similar to the ancient atomists. That the concrete world could actually be composed of such simples as the fundamental elements, is shown by Aristotle to be problematic. In the SEP, it looks like the combinatorialist can actually assume fictitious simples, and in a way, that would solve the problem, but then we wouldn't have a distinction between real simples and fictitious simples. And since the real simples can't be substantiated, we'd have to conclude that all simples are fictitious, leaving no substance to the physical world.
You’re importing a picture that does most of the work for you, then blaming states of affairs for its consequences.
First, the idea that a ‘state’ must be unchanging is a stipulation, not a truth. A state of affairs can include change. ‘The ball rolled east at 2 m/s for five seconds’ is a perfectly ordinary state of affairs.
You keep treating a state of affairs as a snapshot, not a way things are. A way things are can be extended in time and internally structured. Saying a state of affairs can’t include change because it would no longer be that state assumes that the relevant description must be momentary or static. That assumption hasn’t been argued for. You have yet to make your case.
Second, your complaint that states of affairs don’t ‘describe the change itself’ is misleading. A description doesn’t re-enact what it describes. A trajectory doesn’t move; a sentence about change doesn’t change. That’s not a deficiency. A state of affairs specifies what’s the case, it doesn't bring it about.
Finally, the move to energy doesn’t do the work you want it to. Energy isn’t a metaphysical substitute for possibility; it’s a parameter in physical theory. Saying energy is ‘the possibility of change’ is a metaphorical gloss, not an ontological insight. Physics already quantifies change in terms of states—states with energies, including their transitions and the laws governing those transitions.
So, the problem isn’t with states of affairs, but with a picture that insists they must be instantaneous, static, and incapable of internal temporal structure. Once that picture is dropped, the alleged contradiction disappears, and the need to relocate possibility somewhere ‘between’ states goes away.
Personally I'm fine with it.
Well, the core criticism here might be much the same as Wittgenstein levelled at his own work, the Tractaus.
But better to set out what the combinators are proposing first...
As I explained, there is no change in that state of affairs. The ball is rolling east for the entire time. And if that changes, it's not the same state of affairs.
Quoting Banno
This is false, you are making a straw man. As I said, I do not accept snapshots. A state of affairs must last for a duration of time, whether long or short. In no way does the fact that a state of affairs cannot be changed without becoming a different, separate state of affairs imply that a state of affairs must be instantaneous. The ball rolling east, or any other state of affairs can persist indefinitely, but if the situation changes, a new descriptive state of affairs is required.
Quoting Banno
The point is that the state of affairs, nor any state of affairs, can describe what brings about a state of affairs. This is because there will always be a "change" which occurs in between, intermediary between, any two successive states of affairs. Therefore no state of affairs can satisfactorily describe what brings about any specific state of affairs. That is the incompatibility between being and becoming demonstrated by Aristotle. But what brings about a state of affairs is a very real aspect of the world. Because of this, states of affairs are insufficient for describing the totality of reality.
Quoting Banno
Why insist on this faulty straw man representation? Did you not read my last post? I very explicitly explained that I did not accept instantaneous states of affairs. I said they were fictional. But I allow for very true states of affairs, ones with temporal extension. To be true, a state of affairs must have temporal extension. However, the problem is that "states of affairs" cannot explain the totality of reality because no state of affairs can adequately describe what brings about one state of affairs from another.
Furthermore, it is not the case that I believe there is a problem with "states of affairs". As stated above, a state of affairs can provide a true representation, of what it is designed for. The problem is with the assumption that states of affairs can provide a complete representation of reality. The description which consists only of states of affairs is necessarily incomplete, and that's why abstractionism fails.
And now
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Keep dithering and vacillating and no one can touch you with anything so solid as an argument.
In ordinary language we can say “there is no apple on the table”.
We could also list the set of things on the table = {book, pen, cup}, and then say “there is no apple in the set”.
To say “there is no apple on the table” is no different to saying “there is no apple in the set”.
In both cases we are referring to something that does not exist.
Learning about logic statements.
¬?x(P(x)?Q(x)) is the situation that there is not something that that is both an apple and on the table
?x(P(x)?¬Q(x)) is the situation that there is at least one thing that is an apple and not on the table
In possible world, say W34, there are no apples at all. Then the proposition “there is no apple on the table” is true.
What would the logic statement be for this possible world W34?
When I see an apple falling to the ground, are you saying we are able to empirically observe more than one moment in time at the same time?
This would mean that we are able to empirically observe the moment in time when the apple left the tree and at the same time also empirically observe the moment in time when the apple hits the ground.
It is more the case that when we empirically observe the apple hitting the ground, we have a memory of the apple leaving the tree.
I'm pretty sure that it is "In W34(¬?x(P(x)?Q(x)))". But I'm no expert. Perhaps @Banno will comment.
Quoting RussellA
I don't understand you. The table exists, and the set exists. We are not referring to any specific apple and not asserting either that apples in general exist or that they don't.
I always knew you have extreme difficulty understanding simple points, but have you completely lost your mind now? For the sake of argument, I allowed that your compilation of states could be considered to be a single state, just to show that this does not affect the soundness of my argument.
Quoting RussellA
No, I am saying that we do not observe any moments in time. A "moment" is an artificial, mental construct. Strictly speaking, we do not "observe" time at all. If a person sees an apple moving one can deduce that time has passed, but we do not observe time. So "time" itself is a mental construct. And to construct that concept of time as consisting of moments, is not consistent with the empirical observation of the apple. The apple is observed to move in a continuous way without any moments in time.
To answer your question now. The question is loaded by asking about observing more that one moment at a time, when "moment" is not an acceptable term in the first place. So, what I would say is that we are always experiencing and observing a duration of time. If you research it, it is unclear as to the exact length of the human present, and perhaps some people experience a different length as their present, than others do.
Quoting RussellA
I agree, because the duration of the human present is shorter than the length of time that it takes for an apple to fall. So the apple is seen to hit the ground, and leaving the tree is already a past observation. But have you ever seen something that moves so fast that it looks like a blur? If the apple moved that fast, it would appear like a blur from the tree to the ground.
This separation between particular and individual provides a more versatile foundation than the abstractionist "state of affairs" as the base element, because the latter unites the particular with the universal, within the basic state of affairs, and this produces the need for the incoherent "transworld identity". In combinatorialism, the fundamental particular, the "simple", is simply a point of matter, and matter on its own without any properties has no identity. So the incoherence of transworld identity can be avoided in this way.
I agree that on the macro scale, such as an hour, we cannot observe time, because we exist within time. Only a being outside of time could observe time. As you say, time is a mental construct that we deduce. For example, from our memories.
==========================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I agree that on the micro scale, such as a second, I do feel that I experience a duration of time, even though intellectually I believe that there can be only one moment in time. Very mysterious.
Conceptually. Semantics do not imbue existence.
A book could be written on that topic.
Linguistic determinism regards language as determining how people perceive existence.
Plantinga, being a Christain philosopher, may argue that "In the beginning was the Word", and from the word came existence. Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed that language does not merely describe objects, but rather determines what we perceive an object to be. Wittgenstein argued that the limits of our language define the limits of our world. Plato considered that conceptions of reality are embedded in language. For the Indirect Realist, objects such as a red postbox only exist as the name “the red postbox”.
We can talk about Sherlock Holmes who does not exist, and Meinong’s logic can deal with non-existent objects, such as round-squares
"There are no apples on the table" is the same question in any world.
Giving a set-theoretical response, if it is true in the actual world there are apples, so the set of apples is not empty, but the set of things on the table contains none of the elements of the set of apples.
In a world in which there are no apples, the set of apples is empty and so again, the set of things on the table contains no elements of the set of apple.
In FOPL, ~?x(Ax ^ Tx) is true in both cases. In w? because Ux(Ax ? ~Tx); in w?? because Ux(~Ax)
The truth of “there is no apple on the table” never requires an apple to exist. So no particular apple is quantified over; no “merely possible apple” is required no “state of affairs” needs to obtain or fail to obtain, and existence is handled entirely by the quantifier, not by a predicate or property.
While we are here, it might be worth noticing that the boxes and diamonds haven't been needed here, because we are talking about truth inside each world, not between them. So "It is possible that there is an apple on the table" says that in at least one accessible possible world there is an apple on the table, and speaks across possible worlds.
In w?? the set of apples is empty. In first order logical terms, there is no extension to "...is an apple". In first-order logic predicates by themselves do not assert the existence of their extensions - that's the role of quantifiers. So an empty extension is perfectly legitimate.
Quoting RussellA
Quantification is not reference. So “there is no apple on the table” is ~?x(Ax ^ Tx). But "There is no apple in the set” is ambiguous between ~?x(Ax ^ Tx) and ?(x)(~A(x) ^ T(x)) This last asserts that there are no apples at all. it's as if we read "There is no apple in the set” as saying that there is a non-existent apple on the table.
A small point, but it might lead to later confusion.
Put simply, states of affairs can be dynamic.
They are not concatenations of instances. Hence they avoid Zeno's objections.
As a corollary, nor are they concatenations of observations at an instant.
You keep saying that. But I don't understand what it is that we are referring to. What's worse is that you are saying on one hand that this object must exist and that it doesn't.
Quoting RussellA
In a sense, both halves are true. The difficulty is that Meinong, IMO, doesn't explain anything, but simply assigns names (labels) to the problems. What we need is a way of seeing through the problems so that we can understand that they are illusions created by our misunderstanding of language. That's what the logical analysis is intended to do.
Very mysterious indeed, and when thoroughly analyzed, along with the ability to direct one's own actions through choice, it becomes very complicated.
Quoting Banno
Sure, that's a state of affairs meant to describe a specific situation, but it would be false in any particular case. Due to resistance from the air, friction, the apple does not actually accelerate in the way of your statement.
Quoting Banno
What you have done is reduced a dynamic situation to a state of affairs. But your state of affairs is false because it does not properly account for the dynamics of the situation. In reality, the rate of acceleration varies over time, due to the forces of friction from the air, and probably some other factors. As the apple accelerates, the force of friction increases and counteracts the acceleration, until a balance would be reached when there would be no more acceleration. In the true dynamics of the situation acceleration would not be constant. Therefore the state of affairs which you stated is false because it does not describe the dynamics of the situation.
You reduce a dynamic situation to a state of affairs, "an apple falling with an acceleration of 9.8m/s²", but that state of affairs is actually false because it does not adequately account for the true dynamics of the situation. You have provided a very good example of why states of affairs cannot provide an adequate representation of a dynamic world. Describing a dynamic situation as a state of affairs will always fail to capture the true dynamics of the situation.
If you like, we can include an error: the apple accelerates at 9.8±0.1m/s².
Your objection is vacuous.
It's still incorrect, for the reasons explained. And as a philosopher, your attempts to avoid the reality of the situation through denial are unconscionable.
You didn't explain anything.
You made a category mistake, confusing idealised description with false description. Physics routinely abstracts stuff like constant acceleration without asserting completeness.
You tried a straw man; Physics doesn't claim that some state of affairs is maximally detailed or “accounts for all forces”.
You used a non sequitur, since from “it does not capture all dynamics” it does not follow that it is captures none.
You missed the point entirely: the example was precisely to show that a state of affairs can be temporally extended and dynamic.
In short, you mistook modelling for misdescription, and abstraction for error.
You are neglecting the point I was making. The point was that the entirety of the observed world cannot be described by states of affairs. I readily admit that states of affairs capture some of reality, but there is a very significant and real portion which cannot be described this way.
You might prefer Wittgenstein's logic "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent", but I prefer to think that when we reach the current limitations of our language, and there is still reality which we cannot describe, then we must devise new ways of speaking.
When we reach the limits of what "states of affairs" can do for us, and there is still more reality to describe, we must devise a new way to speak about it.
Quoting Banno
I've always agreed that states of affairs are temporally extended. In fact, I insist that they must be temporally extended. That's why I object to concepts like "instantaneous velocity" which are not really instantaneous states of affairs, but just use that word, And, I do not deny that "states of affairs" are very useful to describe a significant part of the empirical world. The issue is with the rest of the observed empirical world, the part which sound logic demonstrates cannot be described with states of affairs.
Quoting Banno
You continue with your straw man. The point is that modeling the observed empirical world as states of affairs and nothing else is an error. Above, you accept that states of affairs "does not capture all dynamics". So how does the other, the part not captured by states of affairs fit into the abstractionist's model of possible worlds? If you reject the sound logic, and simply refuse to accept that there is any part of empirical reality which cannot be describe as states of affairs, then you are in denial.
So how do you know it even exists, pardon my juvenile abutment.
You seem to be very capable of describing just about anything, things known and unknown. So, how do you differentiate between "a very significant and real" portion you have absolute proof or reasonable belief to exist, versus that of some unknown "oh who knows" cop-out of things that simply might or might not exist.
If you can refer to something, it can be described. If you have proof of something, or reasonable belief of said something, it can be referred to. Therefore, it can be described.
Are you just using these expressions to refer to the non-descript "unknown" or perhaps even possibility itself? What is "that which exists, could exist, will exist, or might exist, yet cannot be described?" :chin:
Is this something like qualia who we can all acknowledge the color red, perhaps even the idea of "redness" yet never truly agree on something that is intrinsically subjective to the person experiencing it? No, right? It has to be different than that. But is it as simple as a child who builds a perfectly functioning Lego roller coaster toy kit attempting to describe in detail the physics and engineering behind a real roller coaster at a theme park? Does this imply lack of current (perhaps eternal) knowledge that one day (if not hypothetically) can be obtained? Or is this simply walled off, in a way, from the human experience altogether?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It all depends on how you define "state of affairs". "Description" is simply a name for specific kinds of language, mostly those that are true or false. "State of affairs" is simply a name for what the description is a description of. It has very little content, like the word "thing".
There are also metaphorical descriptions, which are more complicated - but are often the engine that generates new kinds of description. When we have invented new kinds of description, "state of affairs" is extended to include those new kinds of description.
In other words "state of affairs" is just a correlative to "description", and is no more limited than "description".
You seem to have a more limited idea of what a state of affairs is. But it is just a question of definition, not of the nature of reality.
When the point you are making changes with your every post, it's not neglect.
And when you contradict yourself in the one paragraph - as were you say first that "the observed world cannot be described by states of affairs" then that "when we reach the current limitations of our language, and there is still reality which we cannot describe, then we must devise new ways of speaking"... and thereby say what was previously unsayable, presumably.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That, now, despite your previously using Zeno's argument, in which they are not temporally extended... Make up your mind.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Indeed, since the state of affairs is how things are, not a model of how things are. You even misunderstand that.
I know it exists through the logic which I outlined, derived from Aristotle. If we describe the temporal world as a succession of states of affairs, then we notice that change has occurred between two distinct states of affairs. This implies that something very real happened between those states, and we desire to understand what it was. The "change" cannot be described as another state of affairs because this would lead to an infinite regress of intermediary states of affairs, without ever getting to a description of the change which happens between the distinct states of affairs.
Quoting Outlander
It definitely can be referred to, as I've been doing, and I believe it can be described or we can devise ways to describe it. it cannot be described as states of affairs though.
Quoting Ludwig V
Right, so what I am talking about is something which cannot be placed in that category. The name "state of affairs" cannot be used to refer to this.
Quoting Ludwig V
Not in this case, that would lead to the issue describe, potential infinite regress without ever describing the thing we want to describe. The thing we want to describe is something which demonstrable cannot be described as a state of affairs.
Quoting Ludwig V
No it isn't If we insist that all description must be as a state of affairs, then we deny ourselves the capacity to describe this part of reality which cannot be described as a state of affairs. that would be a mistake.
Quoting Banno
Where's the contradiction?
Quoting Banno
Reread the section in the SEP. The state of affairs is a description, that's how possible worlds can consist of states of affairs. If the state of affairs corresponds with "how things are" in the concrete world, it is said to "obtain". Come on Banno, you are falling right back into your bad habits of that other thread. This is "abstractionism", get with the program.
:grin:
The state of affairs is that the apple is on the table. It is, for the purposes of the Abstractionist, an abstract object. It is not a description.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You can't see it. That's a problem for you. Fine.
I thought so. Can you give me a reason for restricting the term in that way?
EDIT
On reflection, there is a bit more that I can say.
I have no doubt that change can be accommodated as a "state of affairs".
@Banno has already given an example, I offer "The plane is flying from London to Edinburgh" is clearly a state of affairs. But it is a process which will not change (much) as long as it is flying. That is, it is a continuous process, which occupies time.
We can also easily accommodate changes in the process. The plane may fly faster or slower, lower or higher, but all these changes are easily accommodate as states of affairs.
"The plane is taking off" also seems like a state of affairs. But it is accelerating, which means that its speed is changing. In this case, the speed is not just changing but the rate of change is changing. )The place accelerates faster as it travels down the runway.
But none of that presents a problem. What might present a problem is the fact that to speak of accelerating involves a concept of speed at an instant, But speed is defined as distance covered in a period of time, If the period of time is infinitely close to zero, it seems problematic. But the calculations work perfectly well, so I don't see that as a problem either.
But there is a problem here. If the plane started moving at 1:00, are the wheels turning at 1:00? In which case, it has already started at 1:00. Or are we to say that the wheels are stationary at 1:00? In which case, the plane has not yet started moving at 1:00. We may end up saying that the wheels were moving at infinite velocity at the moment of starting.
In other words, limits and boundaries do present problems and we may have difficulty saying what the state of affairs is at 1:00. This is not really a problem about states of affairs, but about boundaries and limiis. We need to recognize that they belong to neither of the states of affairs that exist on either side of them; these are in a different category and do not occupy space or time.
I think that this is the problem you have in mind when you talk of change between states of affairs.. But, I hope you can see that the problem is not about all changes, particularly not about changes that are processes and occupy time. It is about a certain kind of change, which is a boundary or limit. Nor is it a problem that affects just talk of "states of affairs". The same problem occurs whenever those changes occur and would face us whatever notation we decide to use.
:up:
I am slowly working through your posts.
Yes, the word “obtain” is redundant in possible worlds, although still relevant in First Order Logic.
Yes, we cannot list all possible positions between two points, as such a list would be infinite.
What makes an apple the same apple in different possible worlds?
Russell’s Theory of Descriptions may have a flaw that truth is not always the property of a sentence. Kripke’s Rigid Designator may have the flaw in that names can still be used non-rigidly. Gareth Evans in his own theory of names attempts to combine a theory of descriptions with rigid designation.
As regards Plantinga
I can understand that in a possible world there may or may not be an apple. I can understand that if there is an apple, then this apple has its own unique haecceity. But I cannot understand that if in a possible world there is no apple, there still is the apple’s haecceity (though I listened on YouTube to a talk he gave at New York University about Naturalism and Evolution, and his arguments seemed quite weak)
As regards states of affairs being dynamic.
An apple falls off a branch and hits the ground. We cannot describe the movement of the apple from tree to ground by listing each position it will be in, as this list would be infinitely long, but we can describe its position knowing it is falling under a gravitational force of 9.8 m/s sq
What exactly is a state of affairs.
SEP - States of affairs
Wikipedia - State of Affairs (philosophy)
This suggests that a state of affairs is part of the actual world.
But the actual world can only exist at one moment in time. There is one moment in time when the apple leaves the tree, there is one moment in time when the apple hits the ground, and many moments in time between the two. At each moment in time, the apple will be at one position.
Even so, it may be that this moment in time has a duration, such as Planck time, and a position in space has an extension, such as Planck length.
Even if time has a minimum duration and space has a minimum extension, if a State of Affairs does exist in the actual world, then it can only exist as something within a moment in time, meaning that it is static rather than dynamic.
The equation s = 0.5 f t sq, which describes a change in position with a change in time, cannot exist as a State of Affairs in the actual world, as a State of Affairs can only exist in one moment in time, and a change in time cannot exist within one moment in time.
If a State of Affairs is something that is part of the actual world, because in the actual world time can only exist as a series of moments, a State of Affairs can only be something static.
What are the implications that existence is not a predicate
In a possible world, there may or may not be an apple.
If there is a single apple in this possible world, it would be redundant to say that “the apple exists in this possible world”, as this would be equivalent to saying “an existent apple exists in this possible world”. It would be better to say “there is an apple in this possible world”.
In there are no apples in this possible world, it would be redundant to say that “the apple does not exist in this possible world”, as this would be equivalent to saying “a non-existent apple does not exist in this possible world”. It would be better to say “there is no apple in this possible world”.
If existence is not a predicate, then neither can non-existence be a predicate
Similarly with the mind. I may or may not have the concept of an apple.
If I have the concept of an apple in my mind, it would be redundant to say that “the concept of an apple exists in my mind”, as this would be equivalent to saying “an existent concept of an apple exists in my mind”. It would be better to say “there is the concept of an apple in my mind”.
If I don’t have the concept of an apple in my mind, it would be impossible to say that “the concept of an apple does not exist in my mind”, as it would be impossible to say “a non-existent concept of an apple does not exist in my mind”. One cannot say anything.
Even though there is no apple in my actual world, I can still have the concept of an apple in my mind. Then when I refer to an apple, I am not referring to something in the world but am referring to something in my mind.
I wrote a whole freakin' essay. :grimace:
Modal logic's touchstone is the way we think about the world around us. Simple stuff like: "What if I'd never been born?" That's the theme of a famous Christmas movie called "It's a Wonderful Life" starring Jimmy Stewart and Donna Reed:
In the movie, an angel shows the protagonist what the world would be like without him. He does this by literally putting the character into this alternate world, where he walks around learning what's happened to people he wasn't there to help. Some died. Some became alcoholics. Some took over the town and turned it into a dark hellhole.
Why is it so easy to follow the events of the movie? Why don't we become profoundly confused? Apparently it's because we routinely think this way. We look back and imagine a multitude of paths leading up to the singular present, and from there, we imagine a multitude of futures. Time is shaped like an hour glass in our minds. We're at that place in the middle where grains fall one at a time.
The old question appears, though. What is the relationship between the way we think and the way things really are? The first recorded philosopher to testify that we can't know the answer to that was Socrates in Plato's Crito. What is the role of the logician here? Is she supposed to answer the question that Socrates himself warned can't be answered?
I think abstractionism, concretism, and combinatorialism are three ways of exploring how extravagant we want to get with answering the question.
Concretism: I think this version forgets the original touchstone: the way we think. In the movie It's a Wonderful Life, that's not an alternate Jimmy Stewart. The whole point of the movie is that our Jimmy learns what the world would be like without him. If it turns out that that's a different Jimmy, then we really would become confused and turn the movie off. For all its advantages, I have to nix this one.
Abstractionism: This is a modest approach that enjoys roots in Frege. It gets thumbs up from philosophy of math. It says alternate worlds are figments of thought. How does that relate to the way the world really is? We don't know. We talk about sets, propositions, states of affairs, etc. because it's handy to use those ideas. When God Almighty steps in and reveals the true nature of Everything to us, we'll modify as needed.
Combinatorialists Some people say dreams are just memories that have been jumbled and recombined. Combinatorialists are saying the same thing about possible worlds. A possible world is just components of the actual world pulled apart and put back together in a new way. Is that true? They seem to be saying that I can't dream up anything truly new. I'm not fired up to argue about that. If an orbiting satellite wasn't really something new, it was just the same old stuff reorganized, then ok. It seemed new when they first thought of it, though.
So, "the apple is on the table" is an abstract object. That looks to me, like the type of abstract object which would be correctly called "a description". "Description" is defined as a spoken or written representation. Can you explain why I am wrong to call this type of abstract object a description?
Quoting Ludwig V
The reason is the argument presented by Aristotle. Suppose at some time we have state of affairs A, and at a later time state of affairs B. Since these two are different we can conclude that change has occurred in the time between A and B. As philosophers we desire to know and understand this change. We might explain the change with a third, distinct state of affairs, C, which occurred between A and B, but then we have a change which occurred between A and C, and between C and B. We might posit two more states of affairs, D and E, to account for these changes, but then we have changes between A and D, D and C, C and E, and E and B, requiring more states of affairs. And so on.
As you can see, we are headed toward an infinite regress of states of affairs between A and B, without ever addressing the actual change which occurs between two states of affairs. So, what Aristotle proposed is that we recognize "change" or "becoming" as something distinct and incompatible with "states of affairs", or "being". This implies that something occurs between two successive states of affairs which cannot be accounted for with a state of affairs, and we know this as "change". This is the principal reason for Aristotle's duality of matter and form in his physics. When one state of affairs changes to another, the form or formula changes, but matter provides for the underlying continuity between the two.
If you look at combinatorialism in the SEP article, you'll see that the "particular", takes the place of matter. So we have the "universal" which serves as the descriptive (abstract) form or formula, and the "particular" which is explicitly separate from the formula which is a universal. In this way, the particular is allowed to be independent from every universal, and since identity is obtained from the universal formula. the problem of transworld identity is thereby avoid. The particles of matter, or even space-time points ("Quine (1968) and Cresswell (1972)") in this way, do not have an identity so their transworldliness does not violate the law of identity. The problem here of course, is whether the particulars, and the idea of "simples" in general, have any real substantial existence, or are they merely convenient fictions.
So it does depend on the definition of "state of affairs". Aristotle's argument is indeed a good reason for changing that definition, to allow that states of affairs can comprise change. Problem solved!
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I knew that was why Aristotle constructed his system. But I don't think it would be helpful to adopt it now that we have other ways of explaining it.
The problem is not quite solved because you haven't produced the definition. And it's not that simple. If we redefine "state of affairs" as you suggest, such that 'state of affairs" covers all of reality, then all you have done is produced a false description of reality. Redefining things to suit your purpose, instead of to provide an understanding of reality doesn't solve the problem mentioned.
Quoting Ludwig V
What other ways? Do you mean to define words so that they reflect the way that you want reality to be, rather than the way that it is? That's not very good ontology.
That's the argument. What's your solution? To posit that all change takes place instantaneously between states of affairs? That's absurd. It is clear that most changes take place continuously over a period of time. Look around you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
How do you know that reality is different from my version? Because of that argument? It is not a description of reality, but a reductio ad absurdum of a certain way of thinking about reality.
I did not say that "state of affairs" covers all of reality. I did allow that there are some events that do not fit in to that category.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Exactly. So there is no need to insist that all change occurs between states of affairs. I don't agree with his metaphysics, but it does solve the problem he was facing.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I like to define words so that they do not produce absurdities.
Nothing is instantaneous. It would be equally absurd to say that one state of affairs instantaneously changed into another. I believe the solution is as recommended by Aristotle, we allow for an aspect of reality which defies the fundamental laws of logic. He called it "matter", "potential", and we know it as possibility, what may or may not be.
Quoting Ludwig V
it's not that change necessarily exists between states of affairs. The two coexist. The absurdity of "between states of affairs" is just what occurs if you insist that all of reality can be conceived of as states of affairs. Then we'd have the situation of distinct states of affairs, and no explanation of how one state ends and one starts, or any relation between them.
So you don't seem to understand the problem. Here is another way to look at it. Suppose we propose that all of reality could be accounted for by states of affairs. I'm sure you would agree that there is a difference between distinct states of affairs. Isn't the difference between states of affairs also a part of reality? Therefore, in our account of reality we need to also account for the difference between states of affairs as well as the states of affairs.
Consider now that each possible world is a different state of affairs. The difference between each possible world is what "possibility" is. So we'll never understand the reality of what possibility is unless we recognize as real, that aspect which cannot be accounted for by states of affairs.
Quoting Ludwig V
Good luck with that!
I'm not keen on any of the three. I've mentioned that the use of "maximal" strikes me as problematic. The idea is introduced in the first paragraph and then more or less presumed throughout. It varies a bit, but the idea is something along the lines of a complete account of how things are. It's presumed, and perhaps erroneously, that a world is in some fashion complete.
In concrete approaches a world is defined as the maximally connected object. If we turn to abstractions, we have the world defined by every state of affairs being either included or excluded - again, a maximal (or total) account. If worlds are thought of as combinations, then possible worlds themselves are maximally consistent sets of sentences.
Each of these serves to delimit the extent of a possible world. Each excludes some possibilities and so serves to seperate one world from the others. And it is presumed that we need to do this in order to understand what a possible world is.
But I don't see why this is needed. We do not need a complete account of the world in order to consider what things would be like were Anne not at her desk. Ordinary counterfactual reasoning of this sort just is partial, local, and tolerant of indeterminacy elsewhere.
So what happens if we drop this requirement?
The function of maximalism is to differentiate absolutely between possible worlds, so if we drop maximalism we reduce that ability. We might for example have two partial descriptions of the same world, or not be able to decide if two descriptions are of one world or many.
We may have some propositions whose truth value is undecided. Part of maximalism is that every statement is either true or it is false. But "Anne is not at her desk" leaves "The neighbour is mowing his lawn" undecided.
We are departing from the complete systems like S4 and S5. rather than axioms we'd have a model-theoretical account. Necessity might be seen as true in all accessible situations rather than all accessible worlds. There would be consequences for identity.
We'd have no guarantee of global global consistency. Instead we would have consistency only for what we have access to. And what we have access to becomes somewhat arbitrary - do we consider just Anne's office, or do we consider her house? Her neighbourhood? Her town? Were do we stop?
Despite these issues i find the idea of a localised modal logic appealing.
Yep. States of affairs include change.
Meta has a conceptual difficulty with limits and infinitesimals, and sometimes pictures states of affairs as descriptions at an instant, disallowing change within states of affairs. Sometimes, because his view changes from post to post. Or at least it appears to - there may be some obtuse way in which he can make it coherent, but so far as I can make out, it remains unexpressed.
Cheers. I hope they are worth the effort.
Quoting RussellA
Yep. There is something quite odd about such ghost-apples.
Quoting RussellA
Rather, of all the possible states of affairs, the ways things might be, only some are actual. So the picture is of the actual state of affairs being a subset of all the possible states of affairs.
Quoting RussellA
I don't agree with that. Or rather, it's bringing in a sort of phenomenological or temporal view that only serves to restrict what is true unnecessarily. I'll go along instead with the view that things existed in the past and will continue to do so into the future, or if you prefer, with the view that there are truths about the past and the future.
And that dissolves your qualms about states of affairs being static.
Try this: that we only experience now does not change the truth value of statements about the past. That Caesar crossed the Rubicon remains true even if one insists on considering it only as a fact seen form the present. Even if the actual world only exists in the present, Caesar still crossed the Rubicon. And the situation only improves for facts that are not temporally dependent. That water is H?O is true regardless of when it is spoken.
But I think you will resist that, and I'll leave you to it. It strikes me as an error. In the same vein, there will be apples, even if you do not "have them in your mind". There is a big difference between "The apple is on the table" and "Russell thinks there is an apple on the table". And it seems to me that in trying to make sense of both logic and mind, you mix these two.
Some thoughts:
For Wittgenstein, States of Affairs (SOA) are the fundamental building blocks of reality in the world, and are about how objects can be arranged. The parts of these SOA’s naturally go together, such that it is in the nature of Socrates to be wise. If a SOA exists in the world then it is a fact.
Using brackets to try to make things clearer. IE, “snow is white” is true IFF (snow is white).
There are two aspects
Aspect one - a State of Affairs is not an object’s action
A State of Affairs is the relation between an object and a property, such as (snow is white).
An action is not a property. Therefore, (snow is melting) cannot be a State of Affairs.
As crossing the Rubicon is an action, (Caesar crossing the Rubicon) cannot be a State of Affairs.
Aspect two - a State of Affairs is an object’s property
Situation one, an existent object in the present
Consider the proposition “Sir James Hockenhull is a General”
“Sir James Hockenhull is a General” is true IFF (Sir James Hockenhull is a General).
This is true, as (Sir James Hockenhull is a General) is a State of Affairs that obtains..
Situation two, a non-existant object in the present
Consider the proposition “Caesar is a General”.
This can be neither true nor false, as Caesar does not exist in the present. Therefore, (Caesar is a General) cannot be a State of Affairs.
Situation three, a non-existant object in the past
Consider the proposition “Unicorns were white”
This can be neither true nor false, as Unicorns do not exist either in the present or past. Therefore, (Unicorns were whitel) cannot be a State of Affairs.
Situation four, an existent object in the past
Consider the proposition “Caesar was a General”.
1 - On the one hand
States of Affairs exist in a mind-independent world.
The world only exists in the present.
Past events cannot exist in a world that only exists in the present
Therefore the past event (Caesar was a General) cannot exist in a world that only exists in the present.
Therefore, (Caesar was a General) cannot be a State of Affairs
2 - On the other hand
We may have the concept of a possible world where there is the State of Affairs (snow is white), and we may also have the concept of a possible world where there is the State of Affairs (snow is black).
If we can have the concept of a possible world where there is the State of Affairs (snow is black), it seems to follow that we could also have the concept of a possible world where there is a State of Affairs (Caesar was a General).
The problem
As you say, “There is a big difference between "The apple is on the table" and "Russell thinks there is an apple on the table". And it seems to me that in trying to make sense of both logic and mind, you mix these two.”
We can only know about a State of Affairs in a mind-independent world through concepts in the mind, yet we are trying to determine States of Affairs independently of the mind
Ultimately, States of Affairs cannot be about what exists in a mind-independent world, but must be about our concepts of what exists in a mind-independent world .
If that is the case, then the enquiry is not about the State of Affairs in the world (Caesar was a General) but more about the State of Affairs in the mind “Caesar was a General”.
I would say leave out the word "reality." Wittgenstein (in the Tractatus) is saying that the boundaries of what we call the world are precisely the same as the boundaries of thought.
When we talk or think about the world, we don't usually think of it as a collection of objects, but rather as a complex of relationships and events. We'll call these complexes states of affairs. They're closely kin to propositions.
The basic point of the Tractatus is that since language and the world are meshed together, language can't be used to talk about what's beyond the world (that's the interpretation I favor anyway.)
Quoting RussellA
A realist would say an obtaining state of affairs is mind-independent. Realism is tacked on to the basic idea of a state of affairs. The idea itself is compatible with any ontological outlook.
Quoting RussellA
It's one state of affairs that either obtains or doesn't.
It doesn't matter how you define change, and states of affairs, the problem I described remains, because the difference between distinct states of affairs cannot be accounted for by reference to further states of affairs. Therefore we need to conclude that the reality of the world, any possible world, must consist of more than just states of affairs. Once we commit to using "states of affairs", we must accept that the possible worlds thus created are necessarily incomplete.
Quoting Banno
I'd say that you don't seem to understand what is required of the concept "limit", what a real limit must consist of.
Quoting RussellA
I think that this is a very important point. Possible world semantics necessitates that the propositions, states of affairs, or whatever, reference our ideas, not any independent physical world. This is why truth by correspondence is excluded. Then a further judgement of correspondence is usually required, what the SEP calls whether the statement "obtains". The issue though is that this is not a judgement of 'truth", it is a subjective judgement made relative to the purpose of, or what is intended by, the model. That is why I claim that possible worlds semantics is fundamentally sophistry. If you don't like that word, we might try "rhetoric".
A very high percentage of the stuff you post is completely wrong, like maximally bonkers.
You keep making posts like this with absolutely nothing to support these very strange assertions. If it's true that I appear to you as "completely wrong" "maximally bonkers", then I can only conclude that you appear to me as highly uneducated.
But TLP 2.063 The sum-total of reality is the world
And 2.12 A picture is a model of reality
If Wittgenstein is a major source for the meaning of a state of affairs, we will need to consider reality
===========================
Quoting frank
Yes, TLP 5.6 The limits of my language mean the limits of my world
But how can I know states of affairs in the world if my knowledge of the world is limited by my language. Does this infer that states of affairs only really exist in my language.
===============================================================
Quoting frank
But TLP 2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects (things)
This is why I suggested we leave out the word "reality" because it connotes mind-independence. Russell was a neutral monist, and the Tractatus has the same character.
Quoting RussellA
He sort of mystically says that in a state of affairs, things are like links in a chain. Since the Tractatus is dense and enigmatic, I prefer to just use a logic textbook for determining what state of affairs is.
Is it possible that the haecceity in question is the haecceity of the possible apple?
Really, there is no making sense of this. I know it is not proper philosophy. Some poets make fun of similar issues.
Or there's "The Railroad Station" by Wilawa Szymborska.
Quoting Banno
Wittgenstein makes a major feature of what he calls "shadow" objects in the Blue and Brown books.
He explores the idea in some detail.
Quoting RussellA
The idea that only the present exists is really very odd. "Present" only has meaning in the context of "Past" and "Future". They all exist in the fashion that's appropriate to them. They form a conceptual system, and claiming that only one of them exists is like forgetting that "North" only has meaning in the context of "South" (and "East" and "West").
A couple of things. Actions are usually differentiated from events, such that an action requires an actor and is intended by that actor. So your turning on the light might be an action. But snow melting might be better thought of as an event. Actions are usually considered a sub-class of events.
Events can be put in subject -predicate form. So, in a rough extensional semantics along the lines of Tarski, "snow melts" would be true IFF the extension of "snow" was in the extension of "things that melt".
Further, there is more to states of affairs than objects and properties. The drop back to the intensional, Aristotelian notion of properties and objects is retrograde. Substance-property ontology is far too simplistic. Much better to continue to use extensionality.
So a state of affairs is how things are. This is something that the T-sentence captures: the sentence ont he left is true if the extensional sentence on the right is true. If snow is in the extension of things that melt, then that snow melts is a true state of affairs. If Caesar and the Rubicon are in the extension of "...crossed..." then that is a states of affairs.
There's that slip back into object-property ontology, again. Have a go at reconsidering what you have written here using an extensional logic instead, dropping (or if you prefer, very much simplifying) the metaphysics.
“Sir James Hockenhull is a General” is true IFF Sir James Hockenhull is in the extension of "...is a General"
"Caesar is a General" is true IFF Caesar is in the extension of "...is General".
Note that time does not enter into these sentences. We could incorporate it by adding a few extra bits to the FOPL, if it were needed - but it doesn't seem to be. The substantive point is the extensionality. Temporality does not force a return to object–property talk
Same for "Unicorns were white”, which is true iff the extension of "unicorns" is included in the extension of white things.
“Sir James Hockenhull is a General”, "Caesar is a General", "Unicorns were white” are all states of affairs in that they would be true under some interpretation.
So to this:
Quoting RussellA
Mind-dependency is irrelevant to the truth by extensionality of the sentences being considered, as is past, present and future. All that is considered is the extension. So all the seemingly profound "Past events cannot exist in a world that only exists in the present" says is that if we only talk about the present, then we can't talk about the past. And the odd result of stipulating the restriction of putting all our sentences int he present tense is that a simple sentence such as "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" ceases to have a truth value... no small problem.
Quoting RussellA
Nuh.
The grain of truth here is that sentences are produced by minds. Yet they are very much, very regularly, about what is the case in the world - about states of affairs. The truth value of "Caesar crossed the Rubicon" cannot be found without considering the difference between a state of affair in which Caesar crossed the Rubicon and one in which he didn't. Unless you would deny that such truths involve the world at all...
Indeed.
Yes, from what I've understood he uses it as a stepping stone towards dropping meaning in favour of use. So if we think in terms of the meaning of a statement, we reify that meaning into a shadow of some sort; but if we think in terms of use the shadow disappears. It seems to me to be much the same point as Davidson makes,
I looked up the SEP - States of Affairs
In section 1.1, I discovered that states of affairs are in fact expressed by gerund clauses, as in "Charlie’s eloping with Ginger was surprising" or "Mary’s divorcing Charlie caused Charlie’s demise" or "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s being more than seven feet tall is well-known". I was somewhat relieved that they are related to facts and thoughts.
I think that this is all a philosophical mare's nest around a grammatical device in language. I don't say there is nothing here, and I'm prepared to be convinced.
Quoting Banno
Since it doesn't occur in the Phil. Inv., one thinks it must be some sort of stepping stone. It didn't make the cut. But I think that's a pity - though no doubt he had his reasons. His discussion of pictures and sentences show traces of the TLP with its similarity of structure. Perhaps that's why it didn't survive into the PI.
He articulates meaning as use on pg. 4 of the Blue Book, but doesn't mention shadows until pg. 36. So whatever kind of step it was/is, he had meaning as use when he made it.
Quoting Banno
I'm a bit bothered about this. Caesar was not always a General, so would ("Caesar is not a General" is true IFF Caesar is not in the extension of General) also count as timelessly true?
It is clear that there is no contradiction here. Yet contradiction seems only to require that p and not-p are never true of the same object simultaneously. We need time to apply that law, but timelessness doesn't have time.
It's just that necessary/analytic/a priori truths are clearly timelessly true. Both hypotheses are true, but it is the formula as a whole (p IFF p is true) that is timelessly true, not the constituent sentences.
Yes. One remembers that sentence. I'm still a bit hesitant, because I think that the distinction is useful, even if it is not always apposite.
Yep. If Caesar was a General, even if only for a short time, then it follows that Caesar was a General. Any issues here come form trying to talk about time without first developing a temporal grammar.
We can construct, after Gillian Russell, a quick temporal logic in which primitive expressions of our language are sentence letters, truth-functors, ? and ?, and four unary tense logical operators: F, G, P, and H, meaning at some time in the future, at all times in the future, at some time in the past, and at all times in the future, respectively.
Models are 5-tuples, ?W,T,@,n,I?, with
1. W a non-empty set (worlds)
2. T the set of integers (times)
3. @ ?W (the actual world)
4. n?T (the now)
5. I assigns each sentence letter an intension: a function from T ×W into
{1,0}.
Such a structure has the capacity to set out Caesar was a General, Caesar is a General, Caesar will be a General, and so on.
Caesar is a General now ? I(Caesar_is_General)(n,@) = 1
Caesar was a General at some time in the past ? P(Caesar_is_General)
Caesar is not a General now ? ¬I(Caesar_is_General)(n,@)
I would have thought that the main purpose of Possible World Semantics (PWS) is to reference the world, meaning that correspondence is a core part of PSW. The terms possibly, necessarily, ought, could, might, etc are central to understanding the meaning of ordinary language, and ordinary language is useful when it does refer to the world. “If I cross the road now, there might be a truck around the corner, and I could be knocked down” is a real world situation where modal terms are critical.
In your own writing, an understanding of modal terms is necessary if we are possibly to understand the meaning of the paragraph.
I agree that some philosophers may be more interested in publishing articles than coming up with an agreed solution, but that is always the case. However, it does not take away from the day to day relevance of PSW.
Yes!
Sad that this has to be said!
There is the SOA (snow is white)
There is also the SOA (snow, being white, is well known)
There is the problem of disconnecting the world from the thought of the world, when we only know the world through our thoughts.
Being known is a thought, but then being white is also a thought.
Properties - actions - events
Property = the characteristic of a being, such as “John is a walker”
Action = something done by a sentient being, such as “John is walking”
Event = something that is done to either a sentient or insentient being, such as “John is winning” or “snow is falling”.
States of Affairs (SOA)
A SOA is the way the world is.
Some consider a SOA to be a static truth rather than a dynamic process.
Being a static truth, the predicate will be a property, such as “John is a walker”
The predicate cannot be an action, which is dynamic, such as “John is walking”.
An action changes one SOA into a different SOA, such that the action “John is walking” changes one SOA, “John is at the entrance to the park” into a different SOA “John is at the exit to the park”.
The predicate cannot be an event, which is dynamic, such as “John is winning” or “snow is falling”
An event changes one SOA into a different SOA, such that the event “John is winning” changes one SOA, “John is poor” into a different SOA “John is rich”.
You say that a SOA can be dynamic. It seems to me that a SOA is static. Is there any authoritative judgement?
I'm really quite confused. I lazily though that that-clauses would work - after all, thinking that snow is white and the fact that snow is white are perfection in order grammatically. But the state of affairs that snow is white doesn't sound right. Your way of doing is comprehensible, but not standard English. Which doesn't mean it's wrong. But there must be a standard English way of doing it. On the other hand this gerund business is very curious, yet seems to make grammatical sense. I had thought vaguely that "the state of affairs that snow is white was all one needed.
Then there's the business about states of affairs obtaining rather than existing. My intuition tells me that there is no need for that, but isn't certain.
Have a look at the relevant part of the article:-
SEP - States of affairs 1.1
Quoting Banno
That makes two very uneducated people participating in this threat. Not surprising.
The thread seems to have sort of come off the rails. Instead of assessing the problems which possible worlds semantics poses, as the SEP directs us, the thread has become a worship of the Platonist presuppositions which support possible worlds semantics.
Quoting RussellA
Quoting Banno
Obviously this is false. Clearly allowing that counterfactuals are "possibilities" is a violation of "truth" by correspondence. Probably the reason for so much misunderstanding about "possible worlds", which has been demonstrated by principal participants in this thread, is that they think it is possible to make counterfactuals consistent with truth by correspondence.. If correspondence was the purpose, we wouldn't be describing counterfactuals as possible worlds, as counterfactuals are clearly expressions of "worlds" which violate correspondence..
As the opening of the SEP article states, there is a limit to "the actual world", yet we wonder how things could have been different. The empirical gap between the way things are in the world, and the fictional, "different"', along with the the desire to relate these two in a rational way, is the purpose of "possible worlds semantics". Clearly correspondence cannot be the first principle, as establishing a relation between the world and fictional worlds must be the first principle.
That's is why "possible worlds" is so problematic. To establish a relation between the possible and the actual, "the actual" must be assigned the same status as the possible. Banno clearly recognizes this when he says that the actual is one of the possible, but he fails to respect this principle in his interpretations.
The SEP describes three ways in which this is done. 1. Concretism, within which each world is concrete, 2. Abstractionism, within which each world is abstract, 3. Cobinatorialism, within which each world is a combination of concrete and abstract.
Notice, correspondence is not a fundamental principle. It cannot be, or else that first principle would alter the relation between the true (by correspondence) world, and the other worlds. This would leave the other worlds as nothing but fictions. That's the point we discussed in the other thread which Banno seems incapable of comprehending. If we have a true (by correspondence) world, the other proposals which contradict are false, and they cannot be considered as possibilities. Therefore, we must alter the status of the supposed "true" (by correspondence) world, to allow that the possible worlds are something other than false. In other words, to allow that the possibilities are in fact possible, which is the intent of "possible worlds", we must rid ourselves or "true" (by correspondence), and this produces a compromised representation of "the world".
Quoting RussellA
This is why I think we need to define the different senses of "possible", each of which requires a different type of logic, and enforce those distinctions. I differentiated three significant difference earlier in the thread.
1. Ontological possibility. This is real possibility in the world which necessitates the need for decision making. Ontological possibility is in relation to propositions about the future and the important feature is that there is no truth or falsity to such propositions. By your example, "I will cross the road within the next minute" has no truth or falsity because it is undecided. Such propositions, when ontological possibility is involved, must defy either the law of non-contradiction or the law of excluded middle. Common language use has the law of excluded middle violated, we say that it is neither true nor false, the action which is undecided, and may go either way. Some ontologies however, prefer a violation of the law of non-contradiction.
2. Epistemic possibility. In this case, we assume that there is an actual truth or falsity to the situation, yet the person posing the possibility does not know which. So the possibility of "there is a truck around the corner" is a case of epistemic possibility. You, as the person deciding whether or not to cross the road, does not know if the proposition is true or false, yet you believe there is a truth or falsity to it. Unlike the decision to cross the road, in which case there will only be a truth or falsity after the appropriate time passes, the fundamental laws of logic are not violated here because ask about something which is supported by the past.
3. Counterfactuals. Counterfactuals are often called "possibilities", so I include this in the senses of "possibility", but they are not truly "possible" in any rational way, so they need to be excluded, as not possibilities at all. They reference the past, where there is a truth or falsity (by correspondence) so there is no ontological possibility. Also, as the name "counterfactual" indicates, the truth of the matter is assumed to be known, so there is no epistemic possibility here either. So "counterfactuals" are not possibilities in either of the two principal senses of "possibility", and to avoid confusion ought not be called that. Counterfactuals are very useful, especially in designing experiments, and aiding in predictive capacity, but they ought not be confused as "possibilities".
I propose that if we maintain the above principles, we can keep truth as correspondence, as the first principle. Notice that I produced the definitions of "possible" in a way which corresponds with our experience of "the world". The fundamental problem with possible worlds semantics is that it allows for counterfactuals which are not actually "possible" in any true (by correspondence) sense, to be considered as possibilities. Therefore "possible worlds" has at its very basic level, a violation of "truth" as correspondence.
[quote=SEP] Most of us also believe that things, as a whole, needn't have been just as they are. Rather, things might have been different in countless ways, both trivial and profound. History, from the very beginning, could have unfolded quite other than it did in fact: the matter constituting a distant star might never have organized well enough to give light; species that survived might just as well have died off; battles won might have been lost; children born might never have been conceived and children never conceived might otherwise have been born. In any case, no matter how things had gone they would still have been part of a single, maximally inclusive, all-encompassing situation, a single world. Intuitively, then, the actual world is only one among many possible worlds.[/quote]
Everything which has already occurred, cannot be altered. In that sense it is necessary, and this is the foundation of truth as "correspondence". To propose that things which have already occurred, in the past, could be otherwise, as a possibility, is to violate "truth" as correspondence. Allowing that counterfactuals are possibilities violates the principle of truth as correspondence in a fundamental way.
As I see it so far:
Truth by T-sentence
“Caesar crossed the Rubicon” is true IFF Caesar crossed the Rubicon. But this does not tell us whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon or not
Extensional truths
Suppose there are two sets
Set 1 = {not Caesar, Mario, Francesco}
Set 2 = {Caesar, Mario, Francesco}
Suppose there is the proposition “a person crossed the Rubicon”.
We don’t know which set is the domain of the proposition.
But if we did know that set 2 is the domain of the proposition, then “Caesar crossed the Rubicon” is true because Caesar is within the domain {Caesar, Mario, Francesco}. This is an extensional truth. But in this case, this extensional truth is analytic, as we included Caesar because we know it is true that he did cross the Rubicon.
Intensional truths
Given the proposition “Caesar crossed the Rubicon”, this is either true or not true, but it may be that we never know.
Necessary a posteriori truths
We could have a necessary a posteriori truth. It is necessarily true that either Caesar either did or did not cross the Rubicon (assuming Caesar existed). We may not know the truth today, but we may know the truth in the future. Then “Caesar crossed the Rubicon” will be a necessary a posteriori truth.
Necessary contemporaneous truths in the mind
The only real truths are necessarily contemporaneous in the mind.
I see a red postbox and it is true that I see a red postbox. But the fact that I see a red postbox does not mean that it is true that in the world is a red postbox. In the world may be a green bollard.
In Wikipedia State of affairs (philosophy)
I have been assuming that a State of Affairs is something like “Socrates is wise”
I cannot see a reference to States of Affairs In SEP Possible Worlds 1.1. Do you mean 2.2.1. But 2.2.1 is part of 2.2 Abstractionism.
That my thoughts do correspond with my actual world is the very basis for enabling me to think about other possibilities.
In my mind is the thought that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris. In my actual world the Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
There is a correspondence between the thought in my mind that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris and the fact that in my actual world the Eiffel Tower is in Paris
In my mind is the thought that it is possible that the Eiffel Tower could be in Reno. In a possible world the Eiffel Tower is in Reno.
There is a correspondence between the thought in my mind that it is possible that the Eiffel Tower is in Reno and a possible world where the Eiffel Tower is in Reno
That there is a correspondence between my mind and my actual world does not nullify any correspondence between my mind and a possible world.
That my thoughts do correspond to my actual world (I think that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris and in fact it is in Paris), is the very basis for enabling me to think about other possibilities (I think that the Eiffel Tower could be in Reno).
Better, a way the world might be.
Quoting RussellA
Yes, it can. Extensionally, "John is walking" is true IFF john is found in the extension of "...is walking"
Quoting RussellA
Here is a state of affairs: John walked from the entrance to the park to the exit.
There simply is no requirement that a state of affairs must be a temporal instant. We can talk about a state of affairs at an instant or a state of affairs over time.
Or one. We might apply Occam at this stage.
Yep. Modal logic makes use of extensionality within possible worlds, not the dubious notion of correspondence.
No.
But the rest is pretty good.
I don't think this is true at all. Thoughts are primarily guided by intention, and this is not based in correspondence. We think about what we want and how to get it, without necessarily thinking about the way things are. That's why mistake is common and unsound arguments are abundant. To base our thoughts in correspondence requires a special type of effort, which does not come naturally to the mind of an animal.
Quoting RussellA
You contradict yourself. If, in your mind the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, you contradict yourself to say that in your mind it is also possible that the Eiffel Tower is in Reno.
That is the point which I had great trouble to get through to Banno in the other thread. If you believe that the Eiffel tower is actually in Paris, you cannot also believe that it is possibly in Reno. That would be self-contradiction. Therefore you must alter your belief about the Eiffel tower being in Paris, to "the Eiffel Tower is possibly in Paris", to allow that it is possibly in Reno, without contradiction.
This is why, when designating counterfactuals as "possibilities", it is necessary to make what you believe as the actual world, merely a "possible" world. Correspondence cannot have status, or else the supposed "possible worlds" which are really just counterfactuals, would have to be rejected as false, rather than "possible". This is also why I proposed as #3 above, that counterfactuals must be rejected as a proposed form of "possibility" in order to maintain consistency between "possibility" and correspondence. The use of "possibility" to refer to a counterfactual is an incorrect and misleading use of that word.
Quoting RussellA
As explained above, this is clearly incorrect. It is only by denying the fact (truth by correspondence) that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, that we can allow that it is possibly in Reno. If we accept as a (truth by correspondence) fact, that the Eiffel tower is in Paris, then we must reject the proposition that it might be in Reno. That it is in Paris makes it impossible that it is in Reno.
Quoting Banno
Then why did you say the following:
Quoting Banno
In reply to the following statement from RussellA concerning correspondence?
Quoting RussellA
You seemed so emphatic, now you explicitly change your mind.
Because extension is about reference. The extension of "Banno" is me. And it was in response to your Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You really are lost.
Using your term “ontological possibility”. As regards the proposition “there will be a truck coming round the corner”. In the present, we cannot know whether this proposition will be true or not. However, we can know that either it will be true or won't be true. This is a future possibility
Using your term “epistemic possibility”. As regards the proposition “there is a truck coming round the corner”. In the present, it may be that we don’t know whether this proposition is true or not. However, we can know that either it is true or is not true. This is a present possibility.
You base your claim on counterfactuals. You say “but they are not truly "possible" in any rational way, so they need to be excluded, as not possibilities at all.” It is true that both the past and present are fixed. The present is as fixed as the past. If there is a truck coming round the corner then it is true that “there is a truck coming round the corner”
There are two senses to the word “possible”, one used in logic and one used in ordinary language.
In the sense of logic, if “the truck is coming round the corner” then it is not possible that “the truck is not coming round the corner”. This would break the Laws of Non-contradiction and Excluded Middle.
In the sense of ordinary language, if “the truck is coming round the corner” then it is possible that “the truck is not coming round the corner”. In ordinary language we use possibility all the time. It depends on whether present facts are necessary or contingent. It is certainly not the case that it is a necessary fact that “the truck is coming round the corner”, as the driver could have over-slept, been caught in a traffic jam, had a flat tyre, etc.
It may be argued that counterfactuals which violate the laws of nature, such as “the truck was travelling faster than the speed of light” must be necessary and therefore not possible, whilst counterfactuals which don’t violate the laws of nature, such as “the truck is not coming round the corner” are contingent and therefore possible.
Counterfactuals don’t necessarily violate the principles of truth if they are contingent rather than necessary.
I have the thought that there is an apple on the table.
If I did not believe that there was not a correspondence between my mind and the way things are in the world, I would not attempt to pick the apple up.
====================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It is possible to think about different states of affairs in the world.
I can believe that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, whilst also imagining the Eiffel Tower being in Reno. These are not contradictory thoughts.
I have been assuming that a state of affairs is to be understood as something existing in the world rather than in the mind.
If states of affairs exist in the mind, I can understand that in the mind there can be a state of affairs over a period of time, such as “John walked from the entrance to the park to the exit.” We do have memories of the past. I understand that we can talk about a state of affairs at an instant and over time if it is a concept in the mind. If states of affairs exist in the mind, they can be both static and dynamic.
But how can a state of affairs exist in the world over a period of time when in the world a period of time does not exist. In the world only the present exists. In the world the past and present don’t exist at the same time. If the past and present don’t exist at the same time, there can be no existent period of time in the world. If states of affairs exist in the world, they can only be static.
=======================================================
Quoting Banno
Even though we only exist in the present, we can talk about the past because we have memories of the past.
I have a memory of being at the entrance of the park and have another memory of being at the exit of the park. This allows me to say “I walked from the entrance of the park to the exit of the park”.
=========================================================================
Quoting Banno
My memory allows me to put my sentences in the past. I remember that “I was at the entrance to the park”.
The proposition “I was at the entrance to the park” is true because I remember that I was at the entrance to the park.
Propositions in the past tense still have truth values because of present memories.
You just got finished describing how "extension" in possible worlds relates to abstract objects. Now you use "me" as an example of extension. No wonder you think I'm lost, you're giving me arrows pointing in two different directions. When I choose neither, you think that means I'm lost, when actually I've just decided on something reasonable.
Quoting RussellA
This is correct, but it doesn't quite capture the complexity of "ontological possibility". Because things can happen, between now and that future time, which would influence the future true or falsity, and those things could be affected by human choices, it does us very little good to say that there will be a truth or falsity.
Quoting RussellA
I would not call this a "present possibility". The judgement would be based on observation, and observation is always past by the time it is judged. The reason i am making this distinction is because we experience the present as active, and changing, so we ought not think of it as "fixed".
If we consider the present to always be a duration of time, we ought to allow that not only does part of the present share the properties of the past (fixed), but we need to allow that part shares the proerpties of the future (not fixed). This is necessary to allow that a freely willed act, at the present, can interfere with what would otherwise appear to be fixed.
Quoting RussellA
"The present" is very difficult because things are always changing, even as we speak. That is why I stressed that we ought not think of the present as fixed. So, for example, a person might observe that there is a truck coming around the corner. Then the statement “there is a truck coming round the corner” is judged to be true, or stated as true, based on that observation which is now past. However, in the time that it takes the person to judge and make the statement, the truck could have slammed on the brakes or gone off the road.
This is why we ought not extend the fixedness of the past into the present. Doing this produces a determinist perspective ("perspective" being present), and obscures the truly dynamic nature of the present. This becomes very important with fast moving things like computers, and quantum physics. Notice that the wave function of quantum physics deals with possibilities (the future side of the present), rather than factual statements about the position of a particle.
Quoting RussellA
This is not consistent with any ordinary use I am familiar with. How does it make sense to you, that a person would say both, a truck is coming around the corner, and also it's possible that the truck is not coming around the corner?
Quoting RussellA
That time flows in one direction, and the past cannot be changed, is the most basic law of nature. Any counterfactual which proposes a different past violates this fundamental law of nature.
Quoting RussellA
It's pointless to do this with examples. I can make just as many counter examples. I wanted an apple, so I got up and looked for one. It's just a difference in the way that you and I believe animals think. I think they want something and so they go look. You think they see something, and want it.
Of course, thinking consists of both ways. But you said that correspondence was a necessary condition, and this claimed necessity would exclude the possibility of what I claim. Therefore to allow that the way of thinking which I describe is a real way of thinking, you need to relinquish your claim that all thinking is based in correspondence.
Quoting RussellA
I really don't understand how you can make this claim. If the Eiffel tower is in Reno, then it is not in Paris. If I believe that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, then it is implied that I also believe it is impossible that it is in Reno, which is somewhere other than Paris. Therefore to believe that it is possible that it is in Reno, implicitly contradicts my belief that it is in Paris.
Do you actually believe that "extension" in the case of physical objects is the same as "extension" in the case of abstract objects?
Ok. I'll not spend time pointing out again that to exist is to be in the domain of discourse. Cheers.
The extension of "Bridgett Bardot" remains Bridgett Bardot, even if she had started a fish shop instead of going into acting.
I haven't gone into the detail of the section on Combinatorialism as much as we might .
Thanks for the thread.
The second article is about ontology. I think you and I will probably land in the same place regarding that topic. I think we can hold off unless you're charged up to read it.
Quoting Banno
Again, it's up to you.
And i doubt present company will make much of such a view.
How does that answer the question? I asked you about the difference between "extension" in relation to physical objects, and "extension" in relation to abstract objects.
Are you admitting that you do not recognize that there is such a difference? If so that would explain why you always seem to conflate the "actual world", in reference to a physical thing, and the "actual world" in reference to an abstract object in possible worlds semantics.
That's exactly what I think. Where ontology leaves practical matters behind, it's a wild goose chase.
The Bardot who works in the fish shop is...?
Send in the clowns.
My premise is that the world only exists in the present. It may be there is a minimum duration of time, such as Planck's time, It may be that even though clocks show a different time when either near a mass or accelerating, and even though the “present” may be different for each clock, it remains a fact that for each clock there is only one present. In this present we can remember the past but not the future.
Free will vs determinism
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That we can remember the past but not the future means that for us there is an arrow of time. Between the past we remember and the future that we cannot remember is the present, the “now”.
Both the past and present are fixed, in that we can only remember one past, and by the Law of Non-contradiction there can only be one present. Therefore, both the past and present must be static rather than dynamic.
As regards the future, also by the Law of Non-contradiction, the future that will exist must be fixed, and thereby static rather than dynamic. As we cannot remember this future, we don’t know what this future will be. However, we do know from the laws of logic, necessary and universal, that this future will be fixed, static rather than dynamic.
A reality that is fixed must be deterministic, meaning that free will must be over and above any deterministic fixed reality, and within a meta-reality. By its very nature, a meta-reality must be unknowable within any deterministic reality. Similarly, the meaning of a language cannot be discovered within the language itself, but can only be known in a meta-language external to the language itself. As we cannot use language to discover meaning within itself, but only through a meta-language, we cannot use a deterministic reality to discover free will within itself, but only through a meta-reality.
Whether one believes in a meta-reality enabling free-will in our reality is a matter of faith rather than logic.
Memories
Quoting Metaphysician UndercoverWe experience the present and have memories of the past. If the present has a duration, then it may well be of the order of Plank’s time, but certainly not much more than that. I observe a truck coming round the corner, which quickly becomes a memory. I can then make a judgement, such that the truck was travelling too fast, but this judgement was made in the present and based on a memory of the past.
Imagination
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I see an apple on the table and imagine a yoghurt in the fridge. It is not a contradiction to observe something and imagine a different thing. Similarly, I can see the Eiffel Tower in Paris and imagine the Eiffel Tower in Reno. Neither is this a contradiction.
How can you say that the past is fixed, when what I remember as past is changing all the time? The things which have happened within the past are fixed, but that is changing all the time, so the past itself is dynamic.
Quoting RussellA
Claims of how long the human "now" is vary between a few milliseconds to a few seconds, depending on the purpose of the estimation. Clearly this is a much longer duration than Plank's time.
Quoting RussellA
A "judgement" as your example of something which occurs "in the present", takes a lot longer than Plank time. The average human reaction time is 25 one hundredths (,25) of a second. This is basic reflex, without allowing any time for conscious thought, which is required for judgement.
Quoting RussellA
Sure, but that's not the issue. The issue is that you cannot believe that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris, and also believe that it is possibly in Reno, without implied contradiction. One can imagine all sorts of things, and know that these things are contradictory to what is believed, that is not a problem. The problem is when we designate things which are contrary to what we believe as "possible".
That's what produces the contradiction, because "believing X" implies that the possibility of not-X has been excluded. If we quantify "believe" with a Bayesian model of probability, then the belief that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris is represented as a degree of probability, rather than as a truth. This would allow the possibility that it is in Reno. But I don't think this is an accurate representation of common "belief".
When we believe something as true, we assume to exclude the possibility of falsity. When we are uncertain, we say something like "I think that is correct". However, if we all allow that knowledge is fallible, no matter how certain we are, then we'd probably accept that the Bayesian representation would be better representation. But this requires that we reject the attitude of certitude, and "truth" as we know it, which we have not.
It cannot be the case that in December 2025 “Caesar crossed the Rubicon” and in December 2026 “Caesar did not cross the Rubicon".
==============================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
0.25 seconds is a period of time. Similarly, one week is a period of time and one decade is a period of time.
To call 0.25 seconds a present moment in time would be like calling a decade a present moment in time.
==================================================================
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I can believe one thing and imagine another thing.
Believing is not the same as imagining.
I think I said this already. I believe there is no such thing as "a present moment in time". That is an artificial construct which amounts to a falsity. All time is duration.
Accordingly, the length of the present is dependent on perspective and purpose. We might refer to the current second, minute, hour, day, week, month, year, whatever, as the present, depending on context.
I certainly am not questioning his logic here. However, I am questioning what he thinks science has discovered, that "water is H2O".
In Naming and Necessity he states the following:
"Let's consider how this applies to the type of identity statement expressing scientific discoveries that I talked about before-say, that water is H2O. It certainly represents a discovery that water is H2O."
Again, this is not what science has discovered. The following is a more accurate description of what science discovered and how these terms "water" and "H2O" are actually used in scientific discourse and in ordinary language.
1. Science does not discover statements of identity but statements of composition. For example, it is more accurate to say, “liquids commonly named “water” may be composed of “H2O molecules.” Notice, this nicely leave the possibility of a liquid named “water” may not be composed of “H2O” at all. It is contingent truth whether any liquid named "water" will be composed of H2O molecules. One must go through the exercise of analyzing the liquid to see if some level of H2O molecules are present or none at all. After the liquid is analyzed for its components, a renaming of the liquid may occur depending on the purpose and focus of the scientific investigation. For example, if the pH of the liquid was of interest, the liquid might be renamed as an "Alkaline solution" or "Acidic solution".
2. Does it make sense to say one H2O molecule is water? Well, it depends how you use the term “water”. If the term “water” is used like “dihydrogen monoxide” than the answer is yes because “dihydrogen monoxide" means “H2O”. But this is simply a stipulation.
3. Science often uses the term “water” to mean a collection of H2O molecules. In this case, it does not make sense to say one H2O molecule is water. There are scientific implications in using the term “water” to mean a collection of H2O molecules. Can we still say “water is a collection of H2O molecules.”? But this is not quite right. Depending on temperature or pressure, the collection of H2O molecules might exhibit macroscopic states such as “ice”, “water” or “steam.” Each of these terms serves us well in our daily communication, we do say “I swim in water” but we don't say “I swim in steam”; we do say “I breath in the steam” but we don't say “I breath in the ice”; or we do say “The ice melted when exposed to heat” but we don’t say “The water melted when exposed to heat”
4. One can provide a variety of liquids call “water” and not share a common essence, for example, like “sea water”, “purified water”, and “heavy water”.
5. Chemists will name the same liquid differently depending on the property under examination. For example, the underlying component might be primarily H2O, but the name of the liquid might be something entirely different, 0.0.00001M NaOH solution emphasizes the hydroxide concentration while the same liquid could be named 10 Ci/mmol indicating the specific activity of radioactivity relative to the mass of the chemical in solution.
I do not see Kripke getting to an a posteriori necessary truth.
When you actually look at how these terms are being used, we can land into two natural places:
A. Liquid named "water" may contain "H2O molecules" which is a posteriori and contingent
B. "H2O is H2O" which is analytically true, necessary and a priori
I am interested in your opinion on the following and how you would think Kripke would reply.
Take this two terms, "water" and "air". The claim that water rigidly designated H2O in every possible world in which that substance exists.
OK, what about "air"? So, what has science discovered in the case? Again, depending where you look, the composition may be 78% N2, 21% O2, and 1% Ar. OK, in past posts, someone has replied that it does not rigidly designate anything.
But I am puzzled by this response. In the case of "water", which naturally occurs as a mixture everywhere, we somehow can selectively exclude "impurities" to arrive at a single substance. But with "air", this exercise seems not so simple. What justification is given to keep or exclude any particular substance?
All of this feels rather arbitrarily, picking and choosing examples to make your theory work.
ButQuoting Banno
I'll try explaining this again.
See the "if"? that makes it a conditional. If as you seem to think, science did not find that water is H?O, then ?water ? H?O.
Kripke is not asserting that water is H?O; although he, like most folk, took this as granted. He is not telling physicist what water is made of. He is making a point about the interpretation of modal theorems, such that such equivalences, if true, are necessarily true.
So the question concerning air is misbegotten.
Right, none of them are actually true when properly analyzed. Identity doesn't work that way. So forget about it, Kripke is just blowing smoke.
I think you're looking for some all-purpose meaning to "air" like we might find in a dictionary. We aren't concerned with that with rigid designation. We're analyzing a particular expression. We're just interested in what our speaker means by it.
Sure, but this implies that whether the speaker wants the meaning to be necessary (the same in all possible worlds) or not, is just a subjective stipulation. And, the ability to whimsically stipulate that the 'identity' of "water" is necessary, and the 'identity' of "air" is not necessary, just defeats the whole purpose of possible worlds semantics.
Quoting Richard B
Yes you are, and Banno is simply in denial, about the reality that it is incoherent to say that the same object, or person, has contradictory properties at the same time. Putting the same thing into different possible worlds does not provide the premise required to say that these differences are at a different time.
I'll refer you to @Banno's incoherent notion of "change" here. For Banno, change does not require time. So an object might "change" between one possible world and another, from having a property to not having it, while still remaining "the same" object, just like we say that an object changes from one moment to the next, in time, from having a property to not having it, while still remaining "the same" identity as the object which it is.
The problem of course, is that without a demonstrated continuity, the claim of "change" is unsupported, and the two are distinct, separate things, rather than one changed thing. So with a temporally supported "change" we have empirical observation of a continuity of the object from one moment to the next, despite the fact that it changes in that time. With rigid designation, there is absolutely nothing to support the requirement of continuity. So the stipulation of "change", rather than two distinct objects, is completely arbitrary.
Then, he plays a little mental trick on us. He goes on to refer to a sensation, which he signifies with "S". Each time that this supposed "same" sensation occurs, he marks an "S". Now the "S" is proposed as referring to "the same" sensation, but it's a trick because there is no continuity between one instance to another. In reality, "S" refers to distinct occurrences of similar sensations.
The problem is that the assumed continuity of the supposed object, referred to by "S", which is necessary for concluding that it is a single object, is private, within the mind of the one who senses it. It is not verifiable by public observation. Therefore the supposed object identified by "S" with its required temporal continuity is a private object, making this language which employs "S" to refer to a single identified sensation, is a private language. The thing referred to by "S" is an imaginary thing, and as such, it doesn't have identity in the common way that the chair has identity.
So this is the issue with rigid designation. The supposed continuity of the object, between one possible world and another, which establishes rigid designation, is completely imaginary, private, like the continuity between one instance of "S" and another. This supposed identity, as rigid designation, cannot be supported by empirical observation. Therefore it is nothing but a private language. "Nixon" refers to the same person in a multiplicity of possible worlds, just like "S" refers to the same sensation. That is, by assumption of a private object. There is no observable temporal extension of the object, and the extension between possible worlds is completely imaginary, unverifiable through (public) empirical observation, therefore the supposed "identity" is private. This constitutes a private language, as we assume an object whose existential extension is completely unintelligible. Now "S", or "Nixon" in the example, refers to a completely unintelligible object, making that private language incoherent.
Let me give a compare and contrast between Kripke and Wittgenstein and let us see where it goes.
From Naming and Necessity,
"Let's call something a rigid designator if in every possible world it designates the same object, a nonrigid or accidental designator if that is not the case. Of course we don't require that the objects exist in all possible worlds"
and
"Don't ask: how can I identify this table in another possible world, except by its properties? I have the table in my hands, I can point to it, and when I ask whether it might have been in another room, I am talking, by definition, about it. I don't have to identify it after seeing it through a telescope. If I am talking about it, I am talking about it, in the same way as when I say that our hands might have been painted green, I have stipulated that am talking about greenness."
From Philosphicaal Investigations,
80. I say "There is a chair". What if I go up to it, meaning to fetch it, and it suddenly disappears from sight? - "So it wasn't a chair, but some kind of illusion". - But in a few moments we see it again and are able to touch it and so on. - "So the chair was there after all and its disappearance was some kind of illusion". - But suppose that after a time it disappears again - or seems to disappear. What are we to say now? Have you rules ready for such cases - rules saying whether one may use the word "chair" to include this kind of thing? But do we miss them when we use the word "chair"; and are we to say that we do not really attach meaning to this word, because we are not equipped with rules for every possible application of it?"
Both philosophical points, I find, are forcefully made. Kripke's example, I like it because it seems rather apropos for everyday conversations we have about everyday objects. However, when we bring in the metaphysical talk of possible worlds and rigid designation, I start to squirm. As Wittgenstein say in the 81. "All this, however, can only appear in the right light when one has attained greater clarity about the concepts of understanding, meaning and thinking. For it will then also become clear what can lead us (and did lead me) to think that if anyone utters a sentence and means or understands it he is operating a calculus according to definite rules." What Wittgenstein is trying to do in 80 is to illustrate that very point. Can Kripke look at Wittgenstein's "chair" and say, "If I am talking about it, I am talking about it"? So, does this object only exist in a possible world when it appears, and is excluded when it disappears? But should we include this object as a "chair" even when it behavior so radically different from typical chairs. And how do we go about saying it is identical every time it appears/disappears/appears? Are we equipped with rules for this possible application?
Yes, I can see your discomfort. Can we perhaps work on that?
§80 and §81 concern the extensibility of language. In §80 he is showing how natural languages are open to the unexpected. In §81 he is pretty much expressly rejecting the idea from the Tractatus that our natural languages are approximate to some more perfect formal language, in part because formal languages do not have the openness mentioned. §80 is about how we use natural languages effectively despite the absence of rules that will guide us in every case, and §81 is about how formal systems ought not be considered as showing the true form of our natural languages.
Now this is quite compatible with what Kripke is doing. He's saying that if we are to keep our talk of possibilities consistent, then we must keep our use of proper names and kinds consistent. This is the point made previously, that when we consider how things might have been had Nixon not won the '72 election, our considerations are about Nixon, and not about someone else.
Formal language does not perfect our natural language, but it can guide it.
Another passage I could not but wince at from N&N,
"But what I am concerned with here is a notion which is not a notion of epistemology but of metaphysics, in some (I hope) non pejorative sense. We ask something might have been true, or might have been false. Well, if something is false, it's obviously not necessarily true. If it is true, might it have been otherwise? Is it possible that, in this respect, the world should have been different from the way it is? If the answer is 'no', then this fact about the world is a necessary one. If the answer is 'yes', then this fact about the world is a contingent one." This in and of itself has nothing to do with anyone's knowledge of anything."
This passage seems to offend my Tractatus sensibilities along with a dose of Quinian skepticism towards modal logic. But let us put aside Quine for now, and let me express my Tractatus concerns.
When Kripke says something might have been true or something might have been false, I think it fair to say he is talking about a possible state of affairs. In the Tractatus, the sense of a proposition is simply to picture what might be so, a possible state of affairs. And to grasp the proposition's sense is to grasp both on what it would be like to be true and what it would be like to be false. But what sense can we make of necessarily true proportions, true whatever the circumstance. As Wittgenstein points out, it is necessary that to understand proposition's sense one must understand what it would be like to be true and what it would be like to be false, so this implies that a proposition cannot be true whatever circumstances. So, if a proposition is true whatever the circumstances, whatever might occur in the world, then it pictures nothing in particular. To say something with sense is to picture some definite possibility in particular.
So, from Tractatus point of view, I have these concerns with the Kripke passage:
1. Saying that "....then this fact about the world is a necessary one" seems incorrect. A fact about the world is not because of the nature of logical structure, but whether a possible state of affairs is true or false.
2. Saying that, "Well, if something is false, it's obviously not necessary true." How can proposition that that says nothing, follow from a proposition that says something? From a proposition that says something about the world, how is it obvious that it implies a proposition that shows logical form but states nothing about the world.
I suspect that Kripke might have been influenced by early seventies work in Martin-Lof type theory when he proposed his axiom, because it looks suspiciously like the reflection rule of extensional type theories, namely a rule which asserts that computationally equal terms are definitionally equal de dicto.
For example, 1 + x isn't definitionally equal to x + 1 in a typical so-called "intensional" type theory for they are not the same construction, yet these formulas behave identically under evaluation, for clearly the Boolean equality 1 + x == x + 1 evaluates to True for all natural numbers x. In an extensional type theory, the reflection rule when applied to this case says that a proof of 1 + x == x + 1 for any x, de dicto implies that 1+ x = x + 1. The reflection rule isn't very popular because it implies that type-checking is generally undecidable. Hence in most programming languages, 1 + x and x + 1 aren't considered to be definitionally equal, in spite of always evaluating to the same value.
The reflection rule is structurally identical to Kripke's x=y implies ?x=y, but is innocously de dicto. By contrast, Kripke proposal is meant de re, in a way that is metaphysically speculative and also debunked by the history of science theory change - indeed, the whole point of theory-change is to render the possibilities implied by the previous theory as inconsistent, as for instance when promoting the equivalence between mass and energy to analytic status or downgrading it to synthetic status.
Quoting Richard B
There are some statements that could not be false, no matter how the things in logical space are arranged. Mathematical and logic truths are amongst these. These are in a relevant sense independent of how things are. These are among the necessary truths. They are true in every state of affairs.
Quoting Richard B
Necessary truths are true in any arrangement of logical space. So if a statement is false, at the very lest, it is not true in every arrangement of logical space. But that doesn't mean that is says nothing. That it is not true that the cat is on the mat does tell us something about how things are arranged in logical space.
Or are you thinking of necessary propositions as saying nothing? That's one notion form the Tractatus. "Well, if something is false, it's obviously not necessary true" is consistent with this. A proposition that is necessary tells us nothing about how things are arranged in logical space, because t is true in every arrangement. A statement that is not necessary will be false in at least some arrangement, and so will tel us something.
The exception is contradictions, which are of course the negation of necessary truths, and false in every arrangement of logical space. Together tautologies and contradictions form the boundary of logical space.
The logical space of the Tractatus is a precursor to possible world semantics. It consists in different arrangements fo the things in the world, and each of these arrangements can be considered a possible world. In those terms, the Tractatus presaged possible world semantics.
Does that help?
My main point with this example is if "air" can be non-rigid, then so can "water". But I am open to hear why one would think otherwise.
Well I don't think it addresses my main concern. My discomfort with Kripke is not merely terminological — it’s that he appears to reify necessity as a worldly fact, whereas for early Wittgenstein necessity belongs to logical form, not reality. (And in later Wittgenstein, necessity is a reflection of grammar and language games, and not facts holding in all possible worlds)
More specifically, Kripke’s phrase “this fact about the world is a necessary one” is exactly what Wittgenstein would reject. Your reply implicitly accepts Kripke’s metaphysical framing instead of explaining why it doesn’t violate Tractarian structures. Also, I don't believe you address how a proposition with sense implies something about a proposition without sense? This violates the saying/showing distinction Wittgenstein stressed throughout the Tractatus.
Rigid designation is for proper names. We can use "water" as a proper name like this:
The water in the pool could have been more alkaline.
that bolded section can serve as a rigid designator because we know which water is being discussed. And here:
Water is H20.
as you mentioned, we can't assess this statement one way or the other until we know what the speaker is talking about. Once we determine that here, "water" is being used to refer to a particular chemical, we can treat it like a proper name.
So in all cases where we use rigid designation, it has to be clear which person, place, or thing is being talked about. If there is any confusion at all about that, we can't use rigid designation.
To use "water" non-rigidly, you'd just have to come up with a statement where it's not being used to refer to a particular thing, like
I'm having trouble keeping my head above water.
Not at all sure why you would suppose that. Possible worlds are arrangements of how things might be, in logical space, which is pretty exactly in keeping with the Tractaus.
It's not up to others to explain "Kripke’s metaphysical framing doesn’t violate Tractarian structures" so much as up to you to show how it does, if that is what you think.
Quoting Richard B
If you want a reply on this, you are going to have to explain what you are claiming. Are you trying to say something like: "If 'The cat is on the mat' is false (a proposition with sense), how does this imply anything about 'The cat is on the mat or the cat is not on the mat' (a tautology without sense)?" If so, the answer is straightforward: it doesn't imply it in the usual sense. Rather, the tautology is true independently of whether the contingent proposition is true or false. The relationship isn't one of implication but of logical independence—which is precisely the point about necessary truths being "empty" of empirical content.
My objections have been more around natural kinds as rigid designators, not proper names. Kripke's example "water is H2O" is about a natural kind.
Gotcha. Do you think it's true that water is H20?
OK, to understand what you are saying here, when Kripke says, "Well, if something is false, it's obviously not necessarily true." he is not saying that when something is contingently false, you can infer that it is not necessary true. But that the relationship has something to do with logical independence. Or is that what the Tractatus says, and Kripke would disagree with? I would think the later, and hence my discomfort.
"Water is H2O" is statement without context my friend. If the term "water" is being used like "Dihydrogen monoxide" then it is a stipulation and thus analytically true. There is no difference between "water is H20" and "Dihydrogen Monoxide is H2O". If you are using it as a chemist may use it, then it is about composition, not identity. You can call any liquid you like by the name of"water", but an scientific analysis will tell you the composition. And even if you discover that it is mainly composed on H2O molecule, you can still call that liquid by another name depending on the context of the scientific activity.
Something is necessarily true iff it is tru in every case. Hence, if it is false in a given case, it cannot be necessarily true. I can't see you disagreeing with that.
And if something is contingent, then it is not necessary. I can't see you disagreeing with that.
Both Kripke and the Tractatus would agree here.
I say yes. What say you?
I'd say so.
Notably, Kripke's positions on both positions seem on the surface to come into collision, that might suggest an "early Kripke" with potentially radically different views from an emerging "later Kripke", that parallels the distinction between the early/late Wittgenstein.
Recall that it only hit Kripke later on in his career, that the truth of a mathematical formula might refer to intersubjective social and environmental assertibility conditions that exist independently of the speaker's subjective mental states and personal use of the formula. So the problem for the later Kripke is how to still make sense of x=y ? ?x=y in light of the skeptical rule following paradox that he later readily acknowledges, and whether it forces him to abandon this axiom.
Actually, in this regard the equivalent contrapositive form ¬?(x = y) ? x ? y shines brighter in the face of semantic skepticism, in saying something like "If x isn't necessarily asserted to be equal to y in the future, then I cannot in good conscience declare x to be definitionally equal to y today". And since it is impossible to know in advance what terms will necessarily be intersubstitutable after the next theory change, then one can deduce from the contrapositive of Kripke's axiom that equality 'in good conscience' is purely reflexive: x=y ? x=x. In which case, Kripke's axiom has an anti-metaphysical reading on the understanding that no object is necessarily identical to any other object, in which case Kripke's axiom becomes structurally synonymous with propositional equality in intensional type theories,which is precisely of the form x=y ? x=x, indicating that terms x and y are only equal if they reduce to the same term after term rewriting.
Also recall that the early Kripke proposed the category of a priori contigent propositions. This category is much more resilient to theory change and skeptical paradoxes than the necessary a posteriori category, since they represent the fact that our axioms are perpetually subject to reinterpretation and even revision in light of new information. In light of semantic skepticism, the expression ¬?(x = y) ? x ? y very much looks like a metalogical theorem stating that equality is a priori contigent - an interpretation that flips Kripke's rigid desgination on its head by interpreting it as implying that identity is non-rigid via a denial of the consequent.
Notice this condition, it's a rigid designator "if" it designates the same object in every possible worlds. The issue is that possible worlds are abstractions, so there are no objects in any possible worlds. This makes "rigid designator" useless right from the start, unless we go to some form of concretism. But concretism disallows such transworld identity anyway, for other very clear reasons. So "rigid designator" is completely useless.
Here is the way that Wittgenstein elucidated this issue of identity in "Philosophical Investigations", starting from 253.
253. When I say "another person can't have my pains", what is the criteria of identity? Consider: "This chair is not the one you saw here yesterday, but is exactly the same as it". But if it makes sense to say "my pain is the same as his", then it makes sense to say that we both have the same pain.
254 The substitution of "identical" for "the same" is an "expedient in philosophy". The question for the .philosopher is to give an account of the temptation to use a particular phrase. What, for example mathematicians are inclined to say about "mathematical facts", is not philosophy, but "something for philosophical treatment".
255. "The philosopher's treatment of a question is like the treatment of an illness."
256. Now, how can I give an account of my inner experiences? How can I use words to refer to my inner sensations? I could use natural expressions, but suppose there were none, and I had to "simply associate names with sensations".
Richard B, please reflect on what has been exposed here. There is a problem of "identity" when referring to inner things such as sensations. We cannot employ the same criteria of "identity" which we use when referring to physical objects like the chair. This is because in the case of physical objects we distinguish between "identical" and "the same", but we cannot make that distinction in reference to inner things like sensations. So, with the physical object, there is a chair here today, which is "identical" to the chair which was here yesterday, but it is not "the same" chair, if someone switched two identical chairs. In the case of inner things, if I feel a pain today which is "identical" to the one yesterday, I call it "the same" pain, and the two terms "identical" and "the same" are used interchangeably.
In this way, as described by 253, it makes sense to say "pain" may refer to the same thing for me, as it does for you, therefore you and I feel the same pain, and refer to the same thing when we say "pain". However, this only works if we have the criteria required for justification.
So this matter of criteria is the key point for transworld identity, and specifically the notion of "rigid designator". To signify the object which the rigid designator refers to requires some criteria. This would produce the need for necessary (essential) properties, thereby compromising the usefulness of the possible worlds semantics. We need to allow that the designated object has nothing essential, to cover all the possible worlds. But this denies the possibility of criteria. Then, whatever it is, the supposed object, which is designated by the rigid designator, is completely unintelligible in the way described by Wittgenstein's "private language". It is a private, inner thing, with no criteria for identification, hence no way of knowing the thing being referred to.
So, after laying out this platform, Wittgenstein proceed to talk about the problem of producing such criteria of identification, which I call justification of the use of the name.
Quoting Richard B
Kripke's example is naive, and not at all a fair, or an accurate representation. He says:
"I have the table in my hands, I can point to it, and when I ask whether it might have been in another room, I am talking, by definition, about it. I don't have to identify it after seeing it through a telescope."
What he says here is demonstrably wrong and deceptive. The spoken about object is actually defined as "the table in my hands". Therefore the question about "whether it might have been in another room" must be answered with "No". It is impossible that "the table in my hands" could be in another room because then it would not be ""the table in my hands". The point is that if we adhere to what he says "I am talking by definition, about it", where "it" clearly refers to the table in his hands, then it is impossible that this object is in another room. If it was in another room, it would not be the designated object "the table in my hands".
So Kripke just makes a deceptive use of language, to produce the appearance that the table in his hands could also be in another room. Clearly though, if we adhere strictly to the example, this claim is false. The object defined as ""the table in my hands" could not possibly be in another room, because that would not be consistent with the definition.
And "rigid designator" turns out to be a nonsensical, unintelligible proposal, for the reasons demonstrated by the private language argument. If the designated object is identified by physical existence "the table in my hands", then it cannot be in other possible worlds. And if we remove the physical existence, then it's a private object with no criteria for identification. Any criteria for identity (essential properties) denies certain possible worlds as not possible, arbitrarily compromising the use of "possible worlds".
I can conceive going to a community and asking for a glass of pure H2O and the waiter looking at me with puzzlement. I was thirsty so quickly change my strategy and I ask for a glass of water.
I can also conceive going to a community, maybe too scientifically literate, and asking for a glass of pure H2O, but this time the waiter gives me an incredulous look. The waiter explains that they only have 99.8% H2O, 10ppm Na, 30 ppm Ca, 2 ppm Mg, 5 ppm SO4, 25 ppm Cl, 30 ppm HCO3, 0.1 ppm Fe, 300 ppm HDO, and 20 ppm D2O. He also explains to me that there is some uncertainty in these numbers but can provide those values if requested. I was thirsty so I drank this cornucopia of chemicals, even with this analytical uncertainty.
Back at you
I can conceive some gold is Au if fool’s gold gets $4500 oz. Do I need guidance from possible world semantics to clarify that my use of “some” needs correction?
What say you?
Ok. That's fine. Is a glass of 99.8% H2O, 10ppm Na, 30 ppm Ca, 2 ppm Mg, 5 ppm SO4, 25 ppm Cl, 30 ppm HCO3, 0.1 ppm Fe, 300 ppm HDO, and 20 ppm D2O, a glass of 99.8% water, 10ppm Na, 30 ppm Ca, 2 ppm Mg, 5 ppm SO4, 25 ppm Cl, 30 ppm HCO3, 0.1 ppm Fe, 300 ppm HDO, and 20 ppm D2O?
I say yes. What say you?
I looks like we both have an uneasiness with possible world semantics. I think your unease is more with the metaphysics, while mine is with the application. The PI sections you had mentions, 253 to 256 are typically associated with Wittgenstein's argument around private language. Should this extend to possible world semantics? At first glance, I would say "no". Possible worlds are not suppose to be a private language. In PI, a private language is about language only a single individual understands that refers to purely private inner experiences.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
He does not say this in the quote I mentioned from N&N. What he says is "Don't ask: how can I identify this table in another possible world, except by its properties? I have the table in my hands, I can point to it, and when I ask whether it might have been in another room, I am talking, by definition, about it."
He is not saying if the table in my hands is also in another room, but whether it might have been in another room. And, he is talking, by definition, about it.
I have no issue with this plain speak. We use this kind of language all of the time in real life. We sit down with old friends, talk about old times and reminisce about "might have beens."
But sometimes philosophers should live well enough only. In this case, they go and introduce the concept of "possible world". My intuition tells me just because you can imagine something does not mean it is possible. And when I use the word "possible", I mean it in the most general sense. Also, alternatively, just because you can't imagine something does not mean it is impossible. For instance, we have learned that nothing can go faster than the speed of light. But some would like to qualify this and say "This is a physically impossible, but not metaphysically or logically." Yet, these limits were not derive from experiments, but are derived conceptually. While one can imagine numbers greater than the speed of light without contradiction, those numbers conceptually would quickly undermine our notions of time, space, and causality, basically reality itself would become unintelligible.
Semantics in general, can be understood as situationally defining types, e.g the natural kind gold, in terms of a set of tests, where a failure to pass any of the tests implies the negation of the type, e.g. if this nugget fails to pass the tests of heaviness, malleability and yellowness, then by definition this nugget is not "Gold", i.e. it is of type "Not-Gold". So we have a de dicto component, namely the set of tests that we use to situationally define the type "Not-Gold", and a de re component, namely whether or not our nugget passes or fails ours tests.
Strictly speaking, since natural kinds, indeed any physical kind, are not exhaustively defineable on the one hand, and yet we can only specify finite sets of tests and make finite observations on the other, we should only conclude that something is of type "Not-X" in line with Popper's principle of falsification. E.g we should define "Gold" to be "Not-Not-Gold" whose meaning is situational and in relation to a finite set of tests that we using situationally to define and test for "Not-Gold" (softness, brittleness, etc).
This points towards local definitions for natural kinds that lose their transcendental significance; for different sets of tests will be used in different contexts. e.g although gold has a unique spectral "fingerprint" that can be observed using techniques like X-ray Fluorescence, in most situations such techniques aren't available and hence are not included in the tests that are used to situationally define the presence of "gold". But even when such techniques are available, perhaps the spectrometer is broken, fraud takes place, new scientific laws pop into existence etc. So tests themselves require higher-order tests (i.e. "necessity" is contigent and loses epistemological significance).
We can now think of rigid-designation as a harmless and comedic truism which says that "if" we could non-situationally define gold, by exhaustively specifying what "gold" is in terms of an infinite number of infallible tests covering all contexts and use cases, and "if" our purported sample of 'gold' passed every one of those tests, then we would necessarily "have gold" de dicto, in accordance with our definitions of "gold" and first-order "necessity".
This brings us to the "possible world" variety of semantics: we can think of the execution of a test as updating the state of our world, which is modelled in possible world semantics as a transition to another world. Tests reinforce the idea that the accessibility relation used in in possible world semantics expresses a non-deterministic version of causal implication in relation to a set of non-deterministic causal assumptions. When possible world semantics goes wrong or is under-constrained, it is because the underlying causal assumptions are wrong or under-constrained.
The issue is the relationship between one possible world and another, and the discontinuity implied by that relationship. If someone assumes that there is an object with the same identity in multiple possible worlds, then this supposed object is nothing but an object of a private language, unless the continuity between distinct possible worlds can be established. So it's not that possible worlds are supposed to be a private language, but that the matter of transworld identity creates a private language problem. The matter is the problem of identifying objects which exist in distinct mental images, as "the same object". That is the private language problem. The assumption of "the same" is unjustified, rendering the proposed "object" being an unity of multiple instantiations, as unintelligible.
Think about the chair in Wittgenstein's example. Suppose I insist that the chair here today is the same chair that was here yesterday. This is analogous to saying that the thing named "Nixon" in one possible world is the same as the thing name "Nixon" in another possible world. So you may ask me to justify my claim that the chair is the same object. Since it is a publicly accessible object, I could say look at it, doesn't it look exactly the same. It's identical. That still might not appease you, because you could say that every room in the building has identical chairs, how do I know that they weren't switched. Then, I could say that someone watched over it in the interim, or refer to security video, and the continuity required to justify my claim could be justified.
In the case of "Nixon", justification cannot be done in the same way because the possible worlds are inner objects, imaginary. This means that the continuity of the proposed object referred to, between distinct possible worlds, must also be imaginary, fictitious, or stipulated. And if the thing referred to as "Nixon", is supposed to be the same thing in multiple possible worlds, this stipulation needs to be justified. What makes it "the same thing"? Obviously it's not identical because the different worlds give it different properties. And the supposed continuity from one possible world to the next is not a temporal continuity, so reference to observation, or surveillance is not relevant. Nevertheless, we need justification. Without justification it is simply a private object which is absolutely unintelligible.
In Wittgenstein's other example, where "S" signifies a private thing referred to as "a sensation", the thing referred to is unintelligible to others, until justification of the use of "S" is provided. It turns out that the use of "S" coincides with an observable rise in blood pressure, and this forms the justification. That could be the "essential property" of the sensation referred to by "S". Now justification of continuity between distinct worlds could be done through an essential or necessary property. We could do the same with the thing referred to by "Nixon". We could say that there are essential, or necessary properties, which identify the thing called "Nixon", in every possible world, and this would suffice for transworld identity. However, notice how this arbitrarily, or subjectively, limits the extent of possibility. The number of possible worlds is thereby limited. This amounts to saying that it is impossible for there to be a possible world where the thing called "Nixon" does not have the named essential properties. Therefore the limiting of the possibilities in this way, itself need to be justified. And the choice of these limiting factors becomes very subjective dependent on purpose. And if we want to allow all possibilities, infinite possibility, we must deny any essential properties, and we are back at an unjustifiable, and completely unintelligible object of a private language.
If you take a look at the SEP's description of combinatorialism, the issue might become more clear to you. Here, the object of the private language is called the "simple". The simple has transworld identity as such, having no essential properties, allowing for infinite possibilities. However, because it has no inherent properties it is completely unintelligible, as an object of a private language. Being a private language doesn't mean that we cannot use the word, it just means that what the word refers to cannot be known. So we can all talk about "the simple", just like we can all talk about "the beetle", but this talk doesn't make the private object referred to, intelligible.
So you'll notice in the SEP, that the different philosophers who use this system, of employing "the simple", have different ideas of what "the simple" refers to. That is because it is essentially an object of a private language, in a case where justification of the use of the term varies according to an individual's preference, or purpose. In general, "the simple" is supposed to be an object whose identity, and existence, cannot be justified, as simply a requirement for unlimited possibility. This leaves justification as completely subjective, because justification is to apply limits, boundaries. Consequently the philosopher is allowed to apply limits, and justify what "the simple" refers to, according to the purpose at hand. But the object of the private language is inherently unbounded and therefore unintelligible, then the philosopher applies limits as desired. However, the application of boundaries. limits, is contrary to the basic assumption, and need within the system. The need is for an unlimited object of the private language, and the corresponding assumption. so we are left with self-contradiction when we try to make the object of the private language, referred to here as "the simple", into something which could be understood.
Reading the SEP, you'll see that the simple has a different meaning for Russell as it does for Wittgenstein. Also Quine and Cresswell suggest a different interpretation. Armstrong argues something different. Ultimately, the ontology of "the simple" is a matter of debate. This is because it is employed as the object of a private language, whose existence cannot be justified. That is the purpose of "the simple", to allow for transworld relations which cannot be justified. And, as the object of a private language use of the term is completely unjustifiable. Attempts at justification are self defeating
Quoting Richard B
Look at what he is saying Richard B. The table being spoken about is referred to as the one "I can point to", "the table in my hands". That is very clearly how "the table" is defined here, in this context, by Kripke. It is impossible that this table, the one indicated by the definition, as the one "I can point to", "the table in my hands", could be in another room, or else it would not be the defined table.
Therefore his question is answered very easily. He cannot identify this table in another possible world. That is because he has defined the table spoken about as the table here, and now, in this world, the table I can point to, the table in my hands. By defining the proposed object in this way, he denies the possibility that it could be in another possible world.
This example was to draw attention to what Kripke says in N&N:
"If there were a substance, even actually, which had a completely different atomic structure from that of water, but resembled water in these respects, would we say that some water wasn't H2O? I think not. We would say instead that just as there is fool's gold there could be a fool's water."
I was told that possible world semantics/rigid designation as a formal language does not perfect our language but can guide it. So, I wanted to know if a community that treated "fool's gold"(FeS2) the same as "regular gold" would we need to correct them when they say "some gold wasn't Au." I did not get an answer, but I would say "no" we do not correct them because we can clearly understand how they are using "some" and what is "essential" to them is not some microscopic atomic structure but similar macroscopic properties they find valuable. Another good example is things we call "diamonds." What has science discovered here? That a diamond is C. But wait I thought science also discovered that graphite is C. I am confused about what is happening in that possible world where they both exist. It reminds me of a favorite passage in Quine's paper from "On what there is":
"Take for instance, the possible fat man in the door way; and, again, the possible bald man in the door way? Are they the same possible man, or two possible men? How do we decide? How many possible men are there in that doorway? Are there more possible thin ones than fat ones? How many of them are alike? Or would their being alike make them one? Are no two possible things alike? Is this the same as saying that it is impossible for two things to be alike? Or, finally, is the concept of identity simply inapplicable to unactualized possibles? But what sense can be found in talking of entities which cannot meaningfully be said to be identical with themselves and distinct from one another?"
Getting back to my "diamond" example. Maybe one would like to say "diamond is C in a structure A" and "Graphite is C in structure B" But I could imagine a community saying "some diamonds are not diamonds." What could that mean? Well, actually in today's world many people do not view diamonds found in nature to be the same as "lab-made" diamonds. "Nature-made" diamonds are more expensive than "lab-made" diamonds, and hold their value better historically, yet they both are composed of the same element and microstructurally the same. The "essential" difference between them is simply the process on how they were made.
Possible world semantics as presently understood by computer science, is just denotational semantics for dependently typed languages, as formally expressed using functors in the language of category theory. This purely formal and de dicto understanding of possible world semantics in terms of a kripke frame or categorical equivalent, needs to be distinguished from Kripke's de re metaphysical thesis of rigid designation that refers to a causal theory of reference, by which referents are 'baptised' with a speaker's use of name via ostensive definition. Whilst Kripke frames are formally useful, the same cannot be said of Kripke's metaphysics.
On a purely technical level, your examples illustrate the ontological decisions that must be decided when formally specifying domain knowledge; such decisions are formally expressible in a dependently typed language such as Lean 4 or Coq. The question is, are your examples counterexamples to Kripke's metaphysical concept of rigid designation?
I would think that Kripke would likely argue that his concept of rigid designation refers to the first external cause of a linguistic community's use of a name, that Kripke would call an "initial baptism", involving an ostensive definition that is usually unknown to successive generations of the lingusitic community, who continue to use the name as a result of tradition for many years later. On this understanding, Kripke's hypothesis of rigid designation isn't a semantic guide for understanding the intensional meaning of a language in the sense you questioned above and that I proposed a solution to earlier, rather Kripke's rigid designation is a metaphysical hypothesis about causality and its relationship to language, particulary with respect to natural kinds - a hypothesis that cannot be appraised by simply asking a community about their usage of language and intended meaning.
If we interpret Kripke's axiom in terms of his theory of causal reference, then his x=y ? ?x=y axiom can be interpreted as saying that for any world w' that is accessible from our actual world w, w' shares the same history as w by definition, including having the same initial baptisms for the names used by the speakers of w and w'. So if by definition, the referents of names reduce to their initial baptisms, then it follows that if x and y are names that have identical referents in w, then x and y must also have identical referents in w'. Naturally, Kripke's examples of rigid designation center upon 'static' types in the C++ sense: natural kinds, astronomically large and unchanging objects, and so on, upon which we build theories of causation.
But since Kripke's rigid designation cannot be used to make predictions about future discoveries or predict theory change, and since there is no way of inferring whether or not two names identically refer, his axiom is useless, whilst also reinforcing arguably outdated metaphysical conceptions of historical time, such as the block universe which conflict with, or fail to be useful for, the purposes of Quantum Mechanics.
Yep, pure logic always searches for purity. Unfortunately, reality and humans are messy.
Quoting sime
1. "Water is H2O" I have shown is problematic because it distorts what science actually discovers, how science actually uses the terms, and finally, how we use these term in ordinary language.
2. What about substances such as gold or diamonds that has microstructure exhibited by a single element. This connection between the word "gold" and atomic number 79 is not pre-existing metaphysical bond, but a stabilization of linguistic practice informed by scientiifc investigation.
3. In Norman Malcom's paper "Kripke on Heat and Sensation of Heat", Malcolm dismantles Kripke's idea the heat is identical with the rapid motion of molecules. In particular, he first focuses on Kripke's idea that it is a contingent property of heat to produce a particular sensation in human being; Kirpke's queer idea of how human's "originally" identified certain sensation we call "heat", and, contrary to Kripke, the idea that science discovers correlations not identities.
4. In another of Malcolm's paper, "Kripke and The Standard Meter", he explores Kripke's idea of the standard meter being a contingent a priori truth and finds it wanting. In summary he says, "To think that this sentence should be characterized as either a contingent statement or as a necessary statement seems to me to be looking at it in a wrong way. The sentence, "One meter is the length of S", is correctly characterized as being, in relation to the institution of metric measurement, the definition of 'one meter' and also as a rule for the use of the term 'one meter'. One can also rightly say that this sentence was used to make a fiat or decree. Kripke says that the term 'one meter' was meant to designate 'a certain length in all possible worlds'(p.275) It seems extravagant to say that the decree was a decree for 'all possible worlds'. Probably, the person or persons who made the decree did not envisage anything whatever about 'all possible worlds'.
5. Kripke say something rather prima facie absurd in N&N, "Just as something may have all the properties by which we originally identified tigers and yet not be a tiger, so we might also find out tigers had none of the properties by which we originally identified them. He suggests that this "tiger kind" is rigidly designated by some internal structure, much like the term "water". Certainty an animal's genetic structure would be a good candidate for such an "internal structure." However, I could imagine domesticating a tiger where its behavior is no longer classified as a carnivore but a herbivore. Can't we say we change the kind based on observable properties and not internal structures. What about genetic structure themselves for more simpler living things such as microorganism. But this is tricky, microorganisms can change behavior radically different depending whether they are a "wild type vs lab grown." Depending on their environment microbes will turn genes on or off resulting in morphology differences and behaviors.
I will end with two Wittgenstein quotes showing my foundation of my thinking:
Form PI 18, "Do not troubled by the fact that language (2) and (8) consist only of orders. If you want to say that this shows them to be incomplete, ask yourself whether our language is complete, - whether it was so before the symbolism of chemistry and the notation of the infinitesimal calculus were incorporated in it; for these are, so to speak, suburbs of our language. (And how many houses or streets does it take before a town begins to be a town?) Our language can be seen as an ancient city: a maze of little streets and squares, of old and new houses, and of houses with additions from various periods; and this surrounded by a multitude of new boroughs with straight regular streets and uniform houses."
From On Certainty, 505, "It is always by favor of Nature that one knows something."