Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, my proposal to resolve the difference is based on rectifying your equivocation. Giving the same term "the actual world" two distinct meanings wit...

I'm not interested in your attempt to change the subject.

Are you kidding? I am the one who has repeatedly demonstrated how you equivocate between "the actual world" of realism (real and independent), and "th...

Extensionality is the very first step. We ought to understand what it means before proceeding. It appeared like my interpretation was not consistent w...

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...

The possible worlds semantics creates the illusion of extensional objects, "worlds" as a referent. This is the same tactic used by mathematical set th...

Yes, since you are having such trouble understanding, and continue to double down on your contradictory nonsense, I have to keep thinking of different...

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 supplemen...

@"Banno" Assuming you understood my last post, I'll address this issue you mention. Following @"frank"'s thread about the SEP article on possible worl...

I believe I've demonstrated this to you about four or more times already, in different ways. The "actual world" which you represent with your formulat...

As I said, your interpretation is incorrect. The world we are in is not a possible world.

Thanks for the diagnosis, and prescription, Dr..

So within the modal model there is no actual world, just possible worlds. When you stipulate that one of the worlds is the actual world, that is metap...

I agree. Ok, let's consider this perspective then. The representations of modal logic, are different possible descriptions of an independent actual wo...

You yourself said: "There is no modal difference between the actual world and the other possible worlds... " Therefore if we assign to one of the poss...

Exactly. Within the modal model, we now have two possibilities, "one of the possible worlds is the actual world", or "the actual world is not possible...

That's an incorrect interpretation, for obvious reasons. None of the possible worlds could be the actual world, as that would constitute an invalid di...

I went through this all, way back. When we know that the coin is showing heads, it is incorrect to saying it is possible it is heads. When we do not k...

Sure, you start the thread, I'll follow.

The semantic model does not commit us to the existence of its content. But if the actual world is affirmed to be a part of that semantic model, as you...

Here's an example of the contradiction you fed to me in that link: "Constructs" which are independent from human imagination. Who constructs these met...

That's not very good. Where's the answer?

I did set it out. This will be the third time I post the very same paragraph. Please, could you read it and reply accordingly. This is it: Yes it does...

The A&W root beer is excellent, served in a frost covered glass, straight out of the freezer, which causes ice crystals in the foam. My parents used t...

You have not addressed the issue. That is to define "the actual world" in a way which is consistent with "a possible world", and also realism. I expla...

What does a possible world consist ofthen? You said: " A possible world does not consist of stipulations, so much as a complete description of a state...

I think I'm realist, that's why I have difficult making "possible worlds" (worlds which are not real), consistent with "the actual world" (a world whi...

Speak for yourself. I don't see why anyone would ever assume that there is someone who knows all there is to know. Since knowledge varies from one per...

Can you clarify this? What is a true statement that's beyond our knowledge? It doesn't make any sense to me.

The following is based on your latest description of possible worlds and actual world. Can you point out what's wrong with my reasoning? A possible wo...

1. "For example, it's true you read a post, but it's also possible you might not have read it." That speaks for itself. 2. Just because we can conside...

Point me to one place where you showed error in my reasoning please.

That's a direct reflection of what you are telling me. You are confusing me with nonsense. From everything that I've read, one's metaphysics must be c...

Thanks, I think I'll take a look at his music theory when I get a chance. Towards the end of the metaphysics lectures he mentions a manuscript he's pu...

So "the actual world" is not the world we live in, (where we live, work, and play, does not consist of statements), it is a world of empirically verif...

Definitely a very good read. It's a bit simpler than ND, so it flows well, but it provides very good background material. This is especially so, conce...

Going where? I've laid bare your contradictions and now you say no more. Seems you can't write anything without it being contradictory, so you've shut...

What do you mean we don't get to stipulate that we are in the actual world? You personally, have stipulated that we are in the actual world, numerous ...

Near the beginning of these lectures on metaphysics, he distinguishes between metaphysics and theology. Metaphysics is the broader field, so that theo...

That's what I said, it's categorically distinct. That's Banno's claim. Banno said we stipulate which world is the actual world. I addressed that in my...

A very important metaphysical point, I might add. Failure to recognize this might lead one to think that the actual world is one of the possible world...

It is a mistake to separate the observer from the observed. The nature of an experiment is that we do something to the world, in a precisely designed ...

OK, let's get this straight. I hope you are not trying to confuse me. We are in the actual world. Possible worlds are stipulated though. The world we ...

You stipulate that you are talking about the actual world, and this means that the world you are talking about is a possible world, it is stipulated. ...

What is actual is not possible in the sense that it is a distinct category. Since "impossible" is defined relative to "possible", what is actual is ju...

This is the issue. Banno's been arguing that if it is actual it must be possible. I've been trying to show him how we must accept that this is contrad...

Possibly, as that is what you stipulate, but we're right back to where we were, days ago. Remember, I told you how "actually known" is distinct from "...

According to Kim Mitchell, it's correctly spoken as: "Lager and Ale". The implication being that you can't say which one you prefer until you drink th...

Sure, "stipulated". But I don't see how this change of words makes any significant difference. A stipulated world is nothing other than a special type...

But your "rigorous way to talk about it" assigns truth to the talk not the actual world, and it provides no principles to even support the reality of ...