David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 115 (458):187-226 (2006)
If a possible-worlds semantic theory for modal logics is pure, then the assertion of the theory, taken at face-value, can bring no commitment to the existence of a plurality of possible worlds (genuine or ersatz). But if we consider an applied theory (an application of the pure theory) in which the elements of the models are required to be possible worlds, then assertion of such a theory, taken at face-value, does appear to bring commitment to the existence of a plurality of possible worlds. Or at least that is so if the applied theory is adequate. For an applied possible-worlds semantic theory that is constrained to contain only one-world models is bound to deliver results on validity, soundness and completeness that are apt to seem disastrous. I attempt to steer a course between commitment to the existence of a plurality of possible worlds and commitment to such a disastrous applied possible-worlds semantics by noting, and developing, the position of one who asserts such a theory at face-value but who remains agnostic about the existence of other (non-actualized) possible worlds. Thus, a novel interpretation of applied possible-worlds semantics is offered on which we may lay claim to whatever benefits such a theory offers while avoiding realism about (other) possible worlds. Thereby, the contention that applied possible-worlds semantics gives us reason to be realists about possible worlds is (further) undermined.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Lloyd Humberstone (2007). Modal Logic for Other-World Agnostics: Neutrality and Halldén Incompleteness. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (1):1 - 32.
Lloyd Humberstone (2006). Modal Logic for Other-World Agnostics: Neutrality and Halldén Incompleteness. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36 (1):1-32.
Similar books and articles
Stephen Barker (2011). Can Counterfactuals Really Be About Possible Worlds? Noûs 45 (3):557-576.
Louis deRosset (2009). Possible Worlds II: Non-Reductive Theories of Possible Worlds. Philosophy Compass 4 (6):1009-1021.
Charles S. Chihara (1998). The Worlds of Possibility: Modal Realism and the Semantics of Modal Logic. Oxford University Press.
Mark Jago (2012). Constructing Worlds. Synthese 189 (1):59-74.
Lev Vaidman, Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
David K. Lewis (1986/2001). On the Plurality of Worlds. Blackwell Publishers.
Elke Brendel (1993). Partial Worlds and Paradox. Erkenntnis 39 (2):191 - 208.
Edward N. Zalta (1997). A Classically-Based Theory of Impossible Worlds. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 38 (4):640-660.
John Divers (2004). Agnosticism About Other Worlds: A New Antirealist Programme in Modality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69 (3):660–685.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads254 ( #9,110 of 1,796,173 )
Recent downloads (6 months)13 ( #55,358 of 1,796,173 )
How can I increase my downloads?
|Start a new thread||There is 1 thread in this forum|
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
When we say that "P" is possible iff there is a possible world where "P" is true, we can continue and say that there is a possible world where "P" is true iff "A" is true, and "A" is not something about a non-actual possible world. Such an approach would allow us to use the vocabulary of possible worlds, while sustaining an agnostic or an anti-realist position about the the existence of non-actual possible worlds. Can such a reductive approach to possible worlds solve the problem of ontological commitmentt to the existence of non-actual possible worlds? And what do you think that "A" must be as non-actual possible worlds dont get implicated?