# Possibility and Necessity

Size: px
Start display at page:

Transcription

1 Possibility and Necessity 1. Modality: Modality is the study of possibility and necessity. These concepts are intuitive enough. Possibility: Some things could have been different. For instance, I could have been a truck driver. Britain could have won the Revolutionary War. The Earth could have never formed at all. We say that these things are POSSIBLY the case. Necessity: On the other hand, some things could NOT have been different. There could not have been square circles. 2+2 could not have equaled something other than 4. We say that these things are NECESSARILY the case. Possibility and Necessity Interchangeable: Possibility and necessity are really just two sides of the same thing. For instance, if I say Necessarily, <2+2=4>, this is the same thing as saying that That <2+2=4> is false is impossible. We can translate a statement about possibility into one about necessity, and vice versa: (1) Possibly P Not necessarily not-p (2) Necessarily P Not possibly not-p For instance: (note that possible is usually interchangeable with could ) (1) I could have been a truck driver. It is not necessarily the case that I am not a truck driver. (2) Necessarily, I am human. It is impossible for me to be a non-human. Logical vs. Nomological Necessity: I mentioned that <2+2=4> is necessary. It might also seem that, e.g., <Nothing travels faster than the speed of light> is necessarily true. But, this is not the kind of necessity that philosophers are generally concerned with. It is the sort that scientists are concerned with. Scientists ask, what is possible ACCORDING TO THE LAWS? And, what is necessary ACCORDING TO THE LAWS? But, in some sense it is possible that the laws that govern our universe could have been different. Surely, I can at least IMAGINE myself jumping to the moon, or flying faster than light. That is, I can imagine that the world is such that the laws of gravity and lightspeed are different. So, if it is necessarily the case that I could never do these things, it is only in a weaker sense. For, I cannot even IMAGINE myself drawing a square circle, or meeting a married bachelor, or putting 2 things next to 2 things to get 5 things. In philosophy, we say that these latter things are logically impossible (i.e., they would violate the laws of logic) while the former things are only nomologically impossible (i.e., they would violate the laws of science; from the Greek word nomos for law ). 1

2 2. Possible Worlds Semantics: Philosophers have devised a way of modelling truths about possibility and necessity, using a device of a framework of possible worlds. To understand how this modelling device works, first, let s define some terms: The World: Everything that exists. Now, The World IS a certain way. But, surely The World could have been different. For instance, you might never have been born, stars and planets might not have formed, and so on. In short, there are many possible ways that The World could be, or could have been (perhaps infinitely many). When we contemplate one of these ways The World could be, we are contemplating a specification of The World. Possible World: A specification of a way The World could have been. One of the ways The World could be is the way things REALLY ARE. That is, one of the possible worlds is the way the world IS; i.e., the ACTUAL world. Actual World: The possible world that specifies the way The World actually is. Possible State Spaces: The idea of there being various specifications of ways things could have been is not so foreign. For instance, consider the toss of a single 6-sided die. Imagine that it actually lands on 4. The picture above represents the way the ACTUAL world or the way the world ACTUALLY is. But, there are 5 other ways things could be. The pictures below represent 5 other possibilities regarding how things COULD be right now: Before I rolled the die, ALL SIX of these outcomes were possible. As it turns out, the way the die ACTUALLY landed was a 4. But, I COULD HAVE rolled any of the other 5 numbers. So, propositions like <Possibly, I rolled a six> seem intuitively true; and we can 2

3 represent these six possible outcomes by picturing each of these six scenarios as six possible WORLDS one for each of the possible outcomes: roll a four roll a one roll a two roll a three roll a five roll a six World 1* World 2 World 3 World 4 World 5 World 6 (* the actual world) Possible Worlds Analysis: Philosophers typically analyze the notions of possibility and necessity in terms of these possible worlds: (1a) Possibility: <P> is possibly true if and only if <P> is true in AT LEAST ONE possible world. (1b) Necessity: <P> is necessarily true if and only if <P> is true in EVERY possible world. For instance, in the first claim, we might sub in <I rolled a 5>. If that is possible, then there is at least one possible world where I rolled a 5 i.e., some state space which represents the possibility of me rolling a 5. In the second claim, we might sub in <2+2=4>. If that is necessary, then <2+2=4> is true in every possible world. That is, there is no specification of a way The World could be where <2+2=4> is false at least, not one that correctly describes a way The World could be. Imagine, for instance, all of the different ways the die could have been rolled. While, in each of those possibilities, the DIE comes up differently, <2+2=4> remains true in ALL of those scenarios. Note About The Arbitrariness of Utterances and Symbols: Now, this is not to say that the vocalization or the utterance of the syllables Too pluss too ekwalls fore is necessarily true. For instance, in SOME possibility (possible world), Neanderthals might have applied the vocal utterance TOO to the object on the left, and designated it in writing by the symbol 2 on the right: In that case, the utterance of the syllable too, as well as the written symbol 2 would refer to a banana rather than a number. So, what vocalization or written symbol we attach to various concepts is arbitrary. Still there is SOME truth that our arbitrary string 3

4 of symbols 2+2=4 picks out; namely, the true proposition that our utterance REFERS to, <2+2=4>. And THAT truth is true in all possible worlds. Necessary and Contingent Beings: There seem to be two types of beings in the world: (2a) Contingent Being: A being that could have failed to exist. In possible worlds speak: (2a) Contingent Being: A being that exists in some, but not all possible worlds. Everything around you is a contingent being. You could have failed to exist (your parents might never have conceived you, for instance). That chair could have failed to exist (the chair manufacturer might never have built it). The Earth could have failed to exist (certain matter might never have clumped together to form it). But there might be: (2b) Necessary Being: A being that could NOT have failed to exist. In possible worlds speak: (2b) Necessary Being: A being that exists in EVERY possible world. Are there any necessary beings? Perhaps. But, if they exist, they are very special things indeed. For, of all the ordinary things that we interact with every day, all of them are in a sense FRAGILE that is, they will go out of existence eventually, or they might never have existed at all. But, a necessary being is one that COULD NOT have failed to exist. That is, there is no possible way The World could be that does not include it. Some common candidates for necessary beings include abstract entities like numbers and propositions (could two have failed to exist?), and God. Accidental Properties and Essential Properties: Objects have two types of properties: (3a) Accidental Property: A property that something has, but COULD have failed to have; i.e., one that is NOT a part of a thing s nature. In possible worlds speak: (3a) Accidental Property: A property that a thing has in some, but not all possible worlds. 4

5 For instance, you might have the property of being seated right now, but surely you could have failed to have this property. After all, this is not an ingredient of WHAT IT IS TO BE you. You might stand up in a minute or two, and continue to exist. (3b) Essential Property: A property that a thing has, but COULD NOT have failed to have; i.e., one that is a part of a thing s nature, or WHAT IT IS TO BE that sort of thing. In possible worlds speak: (3b) Essential Property: A property that a thing has in every world where it exists. For instance, triangles are essentially 3-sided. If something is a triangle, it could not have failed to be 3-sided. If we take away one of an individual s essential properties, that individual will be destroyed. For instance, if we take away a triangle s three-sidedness, that triangle will cease to exist. Or, what about YOU? Could you have been an alligator? Or, rather, is humanity one of your essential features? Could you have been born of different parents, or is your biological lineage essential to your identity? (We ll ask this question next week.) 3. What are Possible Worlds?: We have seen how invoking possible worlds in our semantic analysis can help us to clarify a lot of claims about what could have been, and would could not have been. For instance, we say that unicorns are possible just as long as there is a way things could be that includes unicorns. But, what do we mean when we say that there is a way things could be? We have called these possible ways WORLDS. But, what ARE these worlds (if anything)? Do they exist? Or, are they rather merely a useful fiction? Side Note: Why we need worlds to be THINGS: Most philosophers accept that possible worlds need to EXIST. The details for why are complicated, but here is a brief explanation. Consider the following true statements: (1) All dogs are mammals. (2) Some mammals are dogs. In logic, we say that these statements quantify over things. To see why, consider the way in which a logician would translate them: (1) For EVERY thing, it is true that, if it is a dog, then it is also a mammal. (2) Out of ALL the things, at least one of them is both a mammal and a dog. Or, alternatively: 5

6 (1) When considering the set of all things, it is true of thing 1 that if it is a dog then it is a mammal, and thing 2 that if it is a dog then it is a mammal, and thing 3 that if it is a dog then it is a mammal, and (2) When considering the set of all things, either thing 1 is a mammal and a dog, or thing 2 is a mammal and a dog, or thing 3 is a mammal and a dog, or These statements take the domain of ALL things and quantify over them or in other words, assert something of each of them (via universal or existential quantifiers ). But, we translate modal statements in the same way. Consider this modal claim: (3) I could have been a truck driver. This translates as: (3) My being a truck driver is a way the world could be. Or, alternatively: (3) Out of all the ways the world could be, either way 1 is one where I am a truck driver, or way 2 is one where I am a truck driver, or way 3 is one where I am a truck driver, or Just as (1) and (2) quantify over things in the world, (3) quantifies over possibilities, or ways the world could be. Philosophers choose to call these ways POSSIBLE WORLDS. a. Concrete Worlds: David Lewis proposed something rather surprising. He said that these other possible worlds are REAL, MATERIAL worlds. That is, there really exist other universes out there where unicorns are running around, donkeys are talking, and where you (or your counterpart) are president of the United States. For every way that the world COULD be, there is a world out there that IS that way. An infinite number of universes really exist. Lewis defined a possible world as a spatio-temporally isolated region. If something exists that is connected to us in space or time, then that thing is a part of OUR world (or universe). Other worlds are not over there to be discovered or observed. They are beyond the boundaries of space and time. We could never observe them. If we can never observe other possible worlds (not even in principle!), then why did Lewis claim that there must be such things? Well, he was operating under a certain assumption one that scientists also accept. Namely, one should accept the existence of entities if they serve to EXPLAIN things. For instance, we can t SEE 6

7 electrons or protons. Yet, scientists postulate their existence because their existence explains certain phenomena that we observe. Similarly, mathematicians work with numbers. We can t SEE numbers, but the existence of numbers would serve to make sense of math. For instance, surely the following groups have something in common: There are TWO apples and TWO pandas. If there is no THING that they have in common, then they have nothing in common. So, positing the existence of numbers (such as the number two) is helpful. David Lewis thought that positing the existence of concrete possible worlds was helpful in just the same way. b. Abstract Worlds: We might think that Lewis is crazy. The most common argument against his view, he said, was an incredulous stare. Now, Lewis is right that modal claims need to quantify over SOMETHING. In mathematics, it is hard to make sense of claims like <2+2=4> unless we are quantifying over some THINGS (in this case, NUMBERS). Similarly, we need possibilities or ways the world could be to be in some sense REAL. But, perhaps they need not be concrete. Maybe possible worlds could do the same amount of work if they were abstract (like numbers). Most philosophers reject the existence of concrete worlds. They say that worlds are merely abstract things, like numbers or universals. Consider these states of affairs: The ground s being covered in snow. A monkey s being in this room. An apple s being purple. Surely, these descriptions refer to SOMETHING. After all, what were you just thinking of if these descriptions refer to nothing? But, at the same time, these states of affairs are not CONCRETE as Alvin Plantinga would say, they do not obtain. So, he concludes that they are merely abstract entities. Plantinga claims that possible worlds are just maximally consistent sets of abstract states of affairs. Others believe them to be maximally consistent sets of propositions. For instance: <The ground is covered in snow> 7

8 <The monkey is in this room> <The apple is purple> These are propositions, and clearly they are very much like the states of affairs mentioned above. We might think of possible worlds as books. Each book is a COMPLETE description of a way the world could be. In it, EVERY proposition is accounted for, and is listed in the book as either true or false. For instance, if <Chad is 5 11 tall> is listed in the book as true, then <Chad is 6 tall> will be listed in the book as false. To say that the books are maximal is just to say that each book contains EVERY proposition. To say that each book is consistent is just to say that none of the books contain contradictory statements. Problem: But, invoking consistency within worlds gets the abstract-worlds theorists into trouble. Recall that on the possible worlds analysis, <Possibly, P> is true if and only if <P> is true in at least one possible world. On Lewis s view, he reduces the notion of possibility. For instance, on his view: <Possibly, unicorns exist> is true if and only if, at some world, it is true that unicorns DO exist. Note that the idea of reduction is already familiar to you. For instance, earlier in this semester we questioned whether properties like redness were reducible to other properties (like surface texture of objects, or wavelengths of light). Later in this semester, we ll ask whether or not consciousness is reducible to brain functions. For instance, are there really distinct things in the world called thoughts? Or are they, rather, nothing more than certain neurons firing in certain ways? Lewis says that possibility is like redness or thoughts (if we think that those notions are reducible). Possibilities are nothing more than other, concrete worlds. Thus, he has explained away the notion of possibility by analyzing it in terms of something else (namely, concrete worlds). However, the abstract worlds theorist does NOT want to say something similar: <Possibly, unicorns exist> is true if and only if there exists a set of propositions where <Unicorns exist> is true. 8

9 For, not just ANY set of propositions will do. Some sets of propositions will contain <Unicorns exist> AND <Unicorns do not exist>. But, how do we rule out such sets? Well, the abstract theorist must add that only the POSSIBLE (i.e., consistent) sets of propositions are the relevant ones: <Possibly, unicorns exist> is true if and only if there exists a POSSIBLE (i.e., consistent) set of propositions where <Unicorns exist> is true. Thus, the abstract view must make use of the term possible in its analysis of possibility. It must take possibility as a primitive (that is, it is a notion that is irreducible, or cannot be further analyzed). For the abstract worlds theorists, then, the notion of possibility cannot be explained away. David Lewis takes this to be a huge advantage of his view over this abstract view. Lewis REDUCES the notion of possibility (that is, he can do away with it, analyzing it in purely non-modal terms), and this is something the abstract view cannot do. c. Fictionalism: Some philosophers do not believe that possible worlds exist at all. Just as a mathematician might claim that all that is needed in order to do mathematics is to quantify over FICTIONS (a useful device that WE made up), philosophers might also claim that modal claims ALSO quantify over fictions. Are numbers mere fictions? And if they are, is mathematics still coherent? Similarly, we might ask, are possibilities mere fictions? And if they are, is an investigation of modality still coherent? 4. Identity Across Worlds: Possible worlds may help to clarify several issues about modality, but they also bring problems of their own. Transworld Identity: If we are analyzing modal claims in terms of possible worlds, then it seems as if we are committed to the claim that individuals exist in more than one world. For instance, if I say that I could have been a truck driver, what I mean is that there is a possible world where I AM a truck driver. Remember: This is not so very strange. It is no different than the claim that This die could have come up as a 6 instead of a 4. Here, there is a possibility state under consideration where THIS same die exists and came up 6. In short, the various ways things could be often include the very same objects that exist in our actual world. (1) Indiscernibility of Identicals. It might seem like a problem that there is a snubnosed Socrates AND a nonsnubnosed Socrates, but Plantinga insists that it is not. For, Socrates the actual one, OUR Socrates simply has the property of 9

10 being snubnosed and the property of being nonsnubnosed in W. But, these properties are not mutually exclusive. (2) Identification. It may seem that, if Socrates could have been SO different (maybe he could have never become a philosopher at all, could have lost a limb, never grown a beard, and so on), then how can we even make sense of the claim that he exists in other worlds? But, this is confused. We do not peer into other worlds. We simply stipulate, I m talking about the situation in which Socrates wasn t Plato s teacher, or something. There may in fact BE some empirically discoverable qualities of Socrates that he has essentially (we ll talk about this next week), but we don t need to KNOW them in order to make true claims about what Socrates possibly could have done. To understand this, consider a temporal analogue: If I say, When you were just a few months old, you couldn t walk yet it is not as if I would need to be able to look into some nursery and be able to pick you out! So, it seems as if there is transworld identity. Interestingly, Lewis rejects it. He thinks that every individual is world-bound. You do not exist in more than one world (the actual world). But, how can this be? Doesn t he accept the truth of claims like, You could have gone to Virginia Tech? He does. But, he does so by adopting what is called counterpart theory. Worldbound Individuals: Lewis adopts what he calls counterpart theory. This is a strange outcome of his commitment to concrete worlds. For, if possibilities are just reducible to other concrete worlds, then <You could have gone to Virginia Tech> gets analyzed as follows: In some other concrete world, there is someone who is very similar to you in certain relevant ways, and THAT person is going to Virginia Tech. Lewis calls these people in other worlds who are similar to you your counterparts. It is true that I could have been a truck driver because I have a counterpart in some other world who DOES drive trucks. Hubert Humphrey could have won the presidential election against Richard Nixon because Humphrey has a counterpart in some other world who DID win the election. And so on. The Humphrey Objection: But, this gives rise to a famous objection to Lewis s view (perhaps it has already occurred to you). The objection is two-fold: (a) The Meanings of Modal Statements: When I say that Humphrey could have won the election, on Lewis s view, this statement seems to be about some OTHER 10

11 person in some OTHER world who DOES win the election. But, I m not referring to that guy at all! I m referring to THIS guy our Humphrey, the actual Humphrey! (b) The Relevance of Counterparts: What has that guy in that other world got to do with anything? The fact that someone ELSE wins the election in some other world doesn t seem to have anything to do with the question of whether or not OUR Humphrey the actual Humphrey could have won the election. What that OTHER guy does in fact do in his world seems totally irrelevant. If our intuitions here are correct, then Lewis s analysis has led us astray. On his view, apparently Humphrey s possibly winning the election JUST IS his having of a counterpart who DOES win the election. But, that doesn t seem right at all. Whether or not Humphrey could have won the election seems to have only to do with OUR Humphrey and his abilities (and perhaps the abilities of the voters at the time of the election). As Michael Jubien writes (2007), [I]magine, if you will, that there s a distant but very similar planet in our own universe where someone very much like yourself is a playwright and not a philosopher. How plausible would it be to pin the possibility of your having been a playwright on this far-off circumstance? If you find it as implausible as I do, then it should seem all the more implausible if such an individual inhabits an inaccessible physical region instead of a merely distant one. I believe the possibility of your having been a playwright has nothing to do with how people are on other planets, whether in our own or in some other realm. It has only to do with you and the relevant property. A Double-Edged Sword? Unfortunately, this objection seems to cut the abstract view (e.g., Plantinga s) just as deeply. Consider Jonathan Jacobs (2010) criticism: Suppose you were told that somewhere deep in the rain forest is a book that includes a story about you and your truck-driving ways. I doubt that you would be inclined to think that that story, that book, is the reason you could have been a truck driver. You would rightfully respond to such a theory with an incredulous stare. But being informed that it s not literally a story, and that it s not actually written in a concrete book, and that it s not located in the rainforest (or anywhere else, for that matter) that is, being informed that the story is instead an abstract object should serve only to make you more, not less, incredulous. It is, indeed, puzzling why anyone would think that abstract representations of me, even if there are such things, make it true that I could have done such-and-such or couldn t have done thus-and-so. 11

12 Whether or not I could have been a truck driver seems to have nothing to do with whether or not there exists an abstract representation of me (e.g., as an abstract proposition, or abstract state of affairs) that represents me as driving a truck. So, what are we to make of this? What have possible worlds got to do with modality (if anything at all)? 12

### Truthmakers for Negative Existentials

Truthmakers for Negative Existentials 1. Introduction: We have already seen that absences and nothings cause problems for philosophers. Well, they re an especially huge problem for truthmaker theorists.

### Retrospective Remarks on Events (Kim, Davidson, Quine) Philosophy 125 Day 20: Overview. The Possible & The Actual I: Intensionality of Modality 2

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 20: Overview 1st Papers/SQ s to be returned next week (a bit later than expected) Jim Prior Colloquium Today (4pm Howison, 3rd Floor Moses)

### Philosophy 125 Day 21: Overview

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 21: Overview 1st Papers/SQ s to be returned this week (stay tuned... ) Vanessa s handout on Realism about propositions to be posted Second papers/s.q.

### Transworld Identity or Worldbound Individuals? by Alvin Plantinga (excerpted from The Nature of Necessity, 1974)

Transworld Identity or Worldbound Individuals? by Alvin Plantinga (excerpted from The Nature of Necessity, 1974) Abstract: Chapter 6 is an attempt to show that the Theory of Worldbound Individuals (TWI)

### From: Vance, Chad (2013). In Defense of the New Actualism (dissertation), University of Colorado Boulder. 2.2 Truthmakers for Negative Truths

From: Vance, Chad (2013). In Defense of the New Actualism (dissertation), University of Colorado Boulder. 2.2 Truthmakers for Negative Truths 2.2.1 Four Categories of Negative Truth There are four categories

### It turns out that there is an important class of sentences that we have so far pretty much avoided mentioning: modal sentences.

1. Introduction 2. Suspicions Regarding Modal Claims 3. Lewisian Realism 3.1. Overview and Motivations 3.2. Problems Metaphysics I: The Nature of Being 0 1. Introduction So far we have focused on the ontological

### Fatalism and Truth at a Time Chad Marxen

Stance Volume 6 2013 29 Fatalism and Truth at a Time Chad Marxen Abstract: In this paper, I will examine an argument for fatalism. I will offer a formalized version of the argument and analyze one of the

### Nature of Necessity Chapter IV

Nature of Necessity Chapter IV Robert C. Koons Department of Philosophy University of Texas at Austin koons@mail.utexas.edu February 11, 2005 1 Chapter IV. Worlds, Books and Essential Properties Worlds

### On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University

On Truth At Jeffrey C. King Rutgers University I. Introduction A. At least some propositions exist contingently (Fine 1977, 1985) B. Given this, motivations for a notion of truth on which propositions

### From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence

Prequel for Section 4.2 of Defending the Correspondence Theory Published by PJP VII, 1 From Necessary Truth to Necessary Existence Abstract I introduce new details in an argument for necessarily existing

### Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom

Puzzles for Divine Omnipotence & Divine Freedom 1. Defining Omnipotence: A First Pass: God is said to be omnipotent. In other words, God is all-powerful. But, what does this mean? Is the following definition

### 1. Introduction. Against GMR: The Incredulous Stare (Lewis 1986: 133 5).

Lecture 3 Modal Realism II James Openshaw 1. Introduction Against GMR: The Incredulous Stare (Lewis 1986: 133 5). Whatever else is true of them, today s views aim not to provoke the incredulous stare.

### 2 Why Truthmakers GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA 1. INTRODUCTION

2 Why Truthmakers GONZALO RODRIGUEZ-PEREYRA 1. INTRODUCTION Consider a certain red rose. The proposition that the rose is red is true because the rose is red. One might say as well that the proposition

### Fundamentals of Metaphysics

Fundamentals of Metaphysics Objective and Subjective One important component of the Common Western Metaphysic is the thesis that there is such a thing as objective truth. each of our beliefs and assertions

### 15 Does God have a Nature?

15 Does God have a Nature? 15.1 Plantinga s Question So far I have argued for a theory of creation and the use of mathematical ways of thinking that help us to locate God. The question becomes how can

### Session One: Identity Theory And Why It Won t Work Marianne Talbot University of Oxford 26/27th November 2011

A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind Session One: Identity Theory And Why It Won t Work Marianne Talbot University of Oxford 26/27th November 2011 1 Session One: Identity Theory And Why It Won t Work

### Intermediate Logic Spring. Extreme Modal Realism

Intermediate Logic Spring Lecture Three Extreme Modal Realism Rob Trueman rob.trueman@york.ac.uk University of York 1 / 36 Introduction Extreme Modal Realism Introduction Extreme Modal Realism Why Believe

### 24.09 Minds and Machines spring 2007

24.09 Minds and Machines spring 2007 after class salon today handouts in study material section argument A 1. I cannot doubt that my mind exists 2. I can doubt that my brain exists [or that anything physical

### Introduction. I. Proof of the Minor Premise ( All reality is completely intelligible )

Philosophical Proof of God: Derived from Principles in Bernard Lonergan s Insight May 2014 Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. Magis Center of Reason and Faith Lonergan s proof may be stated as follows: Introduction

### PHILOSOPHY 4360/5360 METAPHYSICS. Methods that Metaphysicians Use

PHILOSOPHY 4360/5360 METAPHYSICS Methods that Metaphysicians Use Method 1: The appeal to what one can imagine where imagining some state of affairs involves forming a vivid image of that state of affairs.

### All philosophical debates not due to ignorance of base truths or our imperfect rationality are indeterminate.

PHIL 5983: Naturalness and Fundamentality Seminar Prof. Funkhouser Spring 2017 Week 11: Chalmers, Constructing the World Notes (Chapters 6-7, Twelfth Excursus) Chapter 6 6.1 * This chapter is about the

### Why Counterpart Theory and Four-Dimensionalism are Incompatible. Suppose that God creates ex nihilo a bronze statue of a

Why Counterpart Theory and Four-Dimensionalism are Incompatible Suppose that God creates ex nihilo a bronze statue of a unicorn; later he annihilates it (call this 'scenario I'). 1 The statue and the piece

### Truth and Modality - can they be reconciled?

Truth and Modality - can they be reconciled? by Eileen Walker 1) The central question What makes modal statements statements about what might be or what might have been the case true or false? Normally

### 24.09 Minds and Machines Fall 11 HASS-D CI

24.09 Minds and Machines Fall 11 HASS-D CI dualism, contd. 1 Image by MIT OpenCourseWare. argument A again 1. 2. C. I cannot doubt that I exist I can doubt that my body exists [or that anything physical

### There are three aspects of possible worlds on which metaphysicians

Lewis s Argument for Possible Worlds 1. Possible Worlds: You can t swing a cat in contemporary metaphysics these days without hitting a discussion involving possible worlds. What are these things? Embarrassingly,

### Minds and Machines spring The explanatory gap and Kripke s argument revisited spring 03

Minds and Machines spring 2003 The explanatory gap and Kripke s argument revisited 1 preliminaries handouts on the knowledge argument and qualia on the website 2 Materialism and qualia: the explanatory

### Branching versus Divergent Possible Worlds

KRITERION Nr. 19 (2005), pp. 12-20 Branching versus Divergent Possible Worlds Jiří Beňovský University of Fribourg, Switzerland Abstract David Lewis modal counterpart theory falls prey to the famous Saul

### Philosophy of Mathematics Nominalism

Philosophy of Mathematics Nominalism Owen Griffiths oeg21@cam.ac.uk Churchill and Newnham, Cambridge 8/11/18 Last week Ante rem structuralism accepts mathematical structures as Platonic universals. We

### Ethical non-naturalism

Michael Lacewing Ethical non-naturalism Ethical non-naturalism is usually understood as a form of cognitivist moral realism. So we first need to understand what cognitivism and moral realism is before

### 5 The necessary and the possible

5 The necessary and the possible Problems about modality Possible worlds Possible worlds nominalism The metaphysics of possible worlds nominalism David Lewis Actualism and possible worlds Alvin Plantinga

### Searle vs. Chalmers Debate, 8/2005 with Death Monkey (Kevin Dolan)

Searle vs. Chalmers Debate, 8/2005 with Death Monkey (Kevin Dolan) : Searle says of Chalmers book, The Conscious Mind, "it is one thing to bite the occasional bullet here and there, but this book consumes

### 5 A Modal Version of the

5 A Modal Version of the Ontological Argument E. J. L O W E Moreland, J. P.; Sweis, Khaldoun A.; Meister, Chad V., Jul 01, 2013, Debating Christian Theism The original version of the ontological argument

### Modal Truthmakers and Two Varieties of Actualism

Forthcoming in Synthese DOI: 10.1007/s11229-008-9456-x Please quote only from the published version Modal Truthmakers and Two Varieties of Actualism Gabriele Contessa Department of Philosophy Carleton

### Philosophy 125 Day 13: Overview

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 125 Lecture 1 Philosophy 125 Day 13: Overview Reminder: Due Date for 1st Papers and SQ s, October 16 (next Th!) Zimmerman & Hacking papers on Identity of Indiscernibles online

### Why I Am Not a Property Dualist By John R. Searle

1 Why I Am Not a Property Dualist By John R. Searle I have argued in a number of writings 1 that the philosophical part (though not the neurobiological part) of the traditional mind-body problem has a

### Overview of Today s Lecture

Branden Fitelson Philosophy 12A Notes 1 Overview of Today s Lecture Music: Robin Trower, Daydream (King Biscuit Flower Hour concert, 1977) Administrative Stuff (lots of it) Course Website/Syllabus [i.e.,

### Real Metaphysics. Essays in honour of D. H. Mellor. Edited by Hallvard Lillehammer and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra

Real Metaphysics Essays in honour of D. H. Mellor Edited by Hallvard Lillehammer and Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra First published 2003 by Routledge 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published

### Properties. If no: Then it seems that they could not really be similar. If yes: Then properties like redness are THINGS.

Properties Things cannot be in two places at once. If my cat, Precious, is in my living room, she can t at exactly the same time also be in YOUR living room! But, properties aren t like that. If I have

### BOOK REVIEWS. Duke University. The Philosophical Review, Vol. XCVII, No. 1 (January 1988)

manner that provokes the student into careful and critical thought on these issues, then this book certainly gets that job done. On the other hand, one likes to think (imagine or hope) that the very best

### Theories of propositions

Theories of propositions phil 93515 Jeff Speaks January 16, 2007 1 Commitment to propositions.......................... 1 2 A Fregean theory of reference.......................... 2 3 Three theories of

### Philosophy of Mind. Introduction to the Mind-Body Problem

Philosophy of Mind Introduction to the Mind-Body Problem Two Motivations for Dualism External Theism Internal The nature of mind is such that it has no home in the natural world. Mind and its Place in

### Truth At a World for Modal Propositions

Truth At a World for Modal Propositions 1 Introduction Existentialism is a thesis that concerns the ontological status of individual essences and singular propositions. Let us define an individual essence

### 1.2. What is said: propositions

1.2. What is said: propositions 1.2.0. Overview In 1.1.5, we saw the close relation between two properties of a deductive inference: (i) it is a transition from premises to conclusion that is free of any

### Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics. Critical Thinking Lecture 1. Background Material for the Exercise on Validity

Philosophy 1100: Introduction to Ethics Critical Thinking Lecture 1 Background Material for the Exercise on Validity Reasons, Arguments, and the Concept of Validity 1. The Concept of Validity Consider

### Modal Realism, Counterpart Theory, and Unactualized Possibilities

This is the author version of the following article: Baltimore, Joseph A. (2014). Modal Realism, Counterpart Theory, and Unactualized Possibilities. Metaphysica, 15 (1), 209 217. The final publication

### Department of Philosophy. Module descriptions 2017/18. Level C (i.e. normally 1 st Yr.) Modules

Department of Philosophy Module descriptions 2017/18 Level C (i.e. normally 1 st Yr.) Modules Please be aware that all modules are subject to availability. If you have any questions about the modules,

### ACTUALISM AND THISNESS*

ROBERT MERRIHEW ADAMS ACTUALISM AND THISNESS* I. THE THESIS My thesis is that all possibilities are purely qualitative except insofar as they involve individuals that actually exist. I have argued elsewhere

### Aspects of Western Philosophy Dr. Sreekumar Nellickappilly Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras

Aspects of Western Philosophy Dr. Sreekumar Nellickappilly Department of Humanities and Social Sciences Indian Institute of Technology, Madras Module - 21 Lecture - 21 Kant Forms of sensibility Categories

### David Lewis (1941 ) Introduction

39 David Lewis (1941 ) ROBERT STALNAKER Introduction David Lewis is a philosopher who has written about a wide range of problems in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind and language, including the metaphysics

### What God Could Have Made

1 What God Could Have Made By Heimir Geirsson and Michael Losonsky I. Introduction Atheists have argued that if there is a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, then God would have made

### Kant On The A Priority of Space: A Critique Arjun Sawhney - The University of Toronto pp. 4-7

Issue 1 Spring 2016 Undergraduate Journal of Philosophy Kant On The A Priority of Space: A Critique Arjun Sawhney - The University of Toronto pp. 4-7 For details of submission dates and guidelines please

### Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity by Robert Merrihew Adams (1979)

Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity by Robert Merrihew Adams (1979) Is the world and are all possible worlds constituted by purely qualitative facts, or does thisness hold a place beside suchness

### The Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts

The Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts Abstract. It has been argued by some that the Argument from Vagueness is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the theory of temporal parts. I will neither

### The Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts

The Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts Abstract. It has been argued by some that the Argument from Vagueness is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the theory of temporal parts. I will neither

### Postscript to Plenitude of Possible Structures (2016)

Postscript to Plenitude of Possible Structures (2016) The principle of plenitude for possible structures (PPS) that I endorsed tells us what structures are instantiated at possible worlds, but not what

### On possibly nonexistent propositions

On possibly nonexistent propositions Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 abstract. Alvin Plantinga gave a reductio of the conjunction of the following three theses: Existentialism (the view that, e.g., the proposition

### CHRISTIANITY AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE J.P. MORELAND

CHRISTIANITY AND THE NATURE OF SCIENCE J.P. MORELAND I. Five Alleged Problems with Theology and Science A. Allegedly, science shows there is no need to postulate a god. 1. Ancients used to think that you

### Modal Realism, Still At Your Convenience

Modal Realism, Still At Your Convenience Harold Noonan Mark Jago Forthcoming in Analysis Abstract: Divers (2014) presents a set of de re modal truths which, he claims, are inconvenient for Lewisean modal

### Some Logical Paradoxes from Jean Buridan

Some Logical Paradoxes from Jean Buridan 1. A Chimera is a Chimera: A chimera is a mythological creature with the head of a lion, the body of a goat, and the tail of a snake. Obviously, chimeras do not

### Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions

Comments on Truth at A World for Modal Propositions Christopher Menzel Texas A&M University March 16, 2008 Since Arthur Prior first made us aware of the issue, a lot of philosophical thought has gone into

### HUME'S THEORY. THE question which I am about to discuss is this. Under what circumstances

Chapter V HUME'S THEORY THE question which I am about to discuss is this. Under what circumstances (if any) does a man, when he believes a proposition, not merely believe it but also absolutely know that

### Putnam: Meaning and Reference

Putnam: Meaning and Reference The Traditional Conception of Meaning combines two assumptions: Meaning and psychology Knowing the meaning (of a word, sentence) is being in a psychological state. Even Frege,

### Universals. If no: Then it seems that they could not really be similar. If yes: Then properties like redness are THINGS.

Universals 1. Introduction: Things cannot be in two places at once. If my cat, Precious, is in my living room, she can t at exactly the same time also be in YOUR living room! But, properties aren t like

### Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments

Foreknowledge, evil, and compatibility arguments Jeff Speaks January 25, 2011 1 Warfield s argument for compatibilism................................ 1 2 Why the argument fails to show that free will and

### On the hard problem of consciousness: Why is physics not enough?

On the hard problem of consciousness: Why is physics not enough? Hrvoje Nikolić Theoretical Physics Division, Rudjer Bošković Institute, P.O.B. 180, HR-10002 Zagreb, Croatia e-mail: hnikolic@irb.hr Abstract

### WHY THERE REALLY ARE NO IRREDUCIBLY NORMATIVE PROPERTIES

WHY THERE REALLY ARE NO IRREDUCIBLY NORMATIVE PROPERTIES Bart Streumer b.streumer@rug.nl In David Bakhurst, Brad Hooker and Margaret Little (eds.), Thinking About Reasons: Essays in Honour of Jonathan

### Moore on External Relations

Moore on External Relations G. J. Mattey Fall, 2005 / Philosophy 156 The Dogma of Internal Relations Moore claims that there is a dogma held by philosophers such as Bradley and Joachim, that all relations

### IN DEFENSE OF THE NEW ACTUALISM: DISPOSITIONAL MODAL TRUTHMAKERS AND THE BRANCHING CONCEPTION OF POSSIBILITY CHAD VANCE

IN DEFENSE OF THE NEW ACTUALISM: DISPOSITIONAL MODAL TRUTHMAKERS AND THE BRANCHING CONCEPTION OF POSSIBILITY by CHAD VANCE B.S., University of Florida, 1999 M.A., Southern Evangelical Seminary, 2006 M.A.,

### Between the Actual and the Trivial World

Organon F 23 (2) 2016: xxx-xxx Between the Actual and the Trivial World MACIEJ SENDŁAK Institute of Philosophy. University of Szczecin Ul. Krakowska 71-79. 71-017 Szczecin. Poland maciej.sendlak@gmail.com

Trinity & contradiction Today we ll discuss one of the most distinctive, and philosophically most problematic, Christian doctrines: the doctrine of the Trinity. It is tempting to see the doctrine of the

### IN his paper, 'Does Tense Logic Rest Upon a Mistake?' (to appear

128 ANALYSIS context-dependence that if things had been different, 'the actual world' would have picked out some world other than the actual one. Tulane University, GRAEME FORBES 1983 New Orleans, Louisiana

### II RESEMBLANCE NOMINALISM, CONJUNCTIONS

Meeting of the Aristotelian Society held at Senate House, University of London, on 22 October 2012 at 5:30 p.m. II RESEMBLANCE NOMINALISM, CONJUNCTIONS AND TRUTHMAKERS The resemblance nominalist says that

### Deflationary Nominalism s Commitment to Meinongianism

Res Cogitans Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 8 6-24-2016 Deflationary Nominalism s Commitment to Meinongianism Anthony Nguyen Reed College Follow this and additional works at: http://commons.pacificu.edu/rescogitans

### Varieties of Apriority

S E V E N T H E X C U R S U S Varieties of Apriority T he notions of a priori knowledge and justification play a central role in this work. There are many ways in which one can understand the a priori,

### Class 8 - The Attributive/Referential Distinction

Philosophy 408: The Language Revolution Spring 2009 Tuesdays and Thursdays, 2:30pm - 3:45pm Hamilton College Russell Marcus rmarcus1@hamilton.edu I. Two uses of definite descriptions Class 8 - The Attributive/Referential

### Philosophy of Religion 21: (1987).,, 9 Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Nethenanas

Philosophy of Religion 21:161-169 (1987).,, 9 Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht - Printed in the Nethenanas A defense of middle knowledge RICHARD OTTE Cowell College, University of Calfiornia, Santa Cruz,

### Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body

Kripke on the distinctness of the mind from the body Jeff Speaks April 13, 2005 At pp. 144 ff., Kripke turns his attention to the mind-body problem. The discussion here brings to bear many of the results

### PHILOSOPHY 5340 EPISTEMOLOGY

PHILOSOPHY 5340 EPISTEMOLOGY Michael Huemer, Skepticism and the Veil of Perception Chapter V. A Version of Foundationalism 1. A Principle of Foundational Justification 1. Mike's view is that there is a

### Glossary of Terms Jim Pryor Princeton University 2/11/03

Glossary of Terms Jim Pryor Princeton University 2/11/03 Beliefs, Thoughts When I talk about a belief or a thought, I am talking about a mental event, or sometimes about a type of mental event. There are

### Since Michael so neatly summarized his objections in the form of three questions, all I need to do now is to answer these questions.

Replies to Michael Kremer Since Michael so neatly summarized his objections in the form of three questions, all I need to do now is to answer these questions. First, is existence really not essential by

### III Knowledge is true belief based on argument. Plato, Theaetetus, 201 c-d Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Edmund Gettier

III Knowledge is true belief based on argument. Plato, Theaetetus, 201 c-d Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Edmund Gettier In Theaetetus Plato introduced the definition of knowledge which is often translated

### Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts

Argument from Vagueness for Modal Parts Abstract. It has been argued by some that the argument from vagueness is one of the strongest arguments in favor of the theory of temporal parts. I will neither

### Predictability, Causation, and Free Will

Predictability, Causation, and Free Will Luke Misenheimer (University of California Berkeley) August 18, 2008 The philosophical debate between compatibilists and incompatibilists about free will and determinism

### Philip D. Miller Denison University I

Against the Necessity of Identity Statements Philip D. Miller Denison University I n Naming and Necessity, Saul Kripke argues that names are rigid designators. For Kripke, a term "rigidly designates" an

### DISCUSSION - McGINN ON NON-EXISTENT OBJECTS AND REDUCING MODALITY

PHILLIP BRICKER DISCUSSION - McGINN ON NON-EXISTENT OBJECTS AND REDUCING MODALITY In the preface to Logical Properties, McGinn writes: "The general theme of the book is a kind of realist anti-naturalism

### Entity Grounding and Truthmaking

Entity Grounding and Truthmaking Ted Sider Ground seminar x grounds y, where x and y are entities of any category. Examples (Schaffer, 2009, p. 375): Plato s Euthyphro dilemma an entity and its singleton

### PLANTINGA ON THE FREE WILL DEFENSE. Hugh LAFoLLETTE East Tennessee State University

PLANTINGA ON THE FREE WILL DEFENSE Hugh LAFoLLETTE East Tennessee State University I In his recent book God, Freedom, and Evil, Alvin Plantinga formulates an updated version of the Free Will Defense which,

### The knowledge argument

Michael Lacewing The knowledge argument PROPERTY DUALISM Property dualism is the view that, although there is just one kind of substance, physical substance, there are two fundamentally different kinds

### Universal Consciousness & the Void

May 2016 Volume 7 Issue 5 pp. 337-342 Universal Consciousness & the Void 337 Essay Himangsu S. Pal * ABSTRACT In this essay, I explore the issues of existence of Universal Consciousness (God), the void

### Van Inwagen's modal argument for incompatibilism

University of Windsor Scholarship at UWindsor Critical Reflections Essays of Significance & Critical Reflections 2015 Mar 28th, 2:00 PM - 2:30 PM Van Inwagen's modal argument for incompatibilism Katerina

### The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom

The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom Western monotheistic religions (e.g., Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) typically believe that God is a 3-O God. That is, God is omnipotent (all-powerful),

### Some Good and Some Not so Good Arguments for Necessary Laws. William Russell Payne Ph.D.

Some Good and Some Not so Good Arguments for Necessary Laws William Russell Payne Ph.D. The view that properties have their causal powers essentially, which I will here call property essentialism, has

### Existential Claims and Platonism

Existential Claims and Platonism JC BEALL* 1. Introduction Let a platonic entity be an acausal entity, an entity with which nothing causally interacts. Let standard platonism be the view that there exist

Comments on Ontological Anti-Realism Cian Dorr INPC 2007 In 1950, Quine inaugurated a strange new way of talking about philosophy. The hallmark of this approach is a propensity to take ordinary colloquial

### Verificationism. PHIL September 27, 2011

Verificationism PHIL 83104 September 27, 2011 1. The critique of metaphysics... 1 2. Observation statements... 2 3. In principle verifiability... 3 4. Strong verifiability... 3 4.1. Conclusive verifiability

### Under contract with Oxford University Press Karen Bennett Cornell University

1. INTRODUCTION MAKING THINGS UP Under contract with Oxford University Press Karen Bennett Cornell University The aim of philosophy, abstractly formulated, is to understand how things in the broadest possible

### Parmenides PHIL301 Prof. Oakes Winthrop University updated: 9/5/12 3:03 PM

Parmenides PHIL301 Prof. Oakes Winthrop University updated: 9/5/12 3:03 PM Parmenides and Philosophy - Parmenides represents a watershed in the history of Western philosophy. - The level of logical sophistication