David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Logic 34 (5/6):621 - 649 (2005)
Quantified modal logic (QML) has reputation for complexity. Completeness results for the various systems appear piecemeal. Different tactics are used for different systems, and success of a given method seems sensitive to many factors, including the specific combination of choices made for the quantifiers, terms, identity, and the strength of the underlying propositional modal logic. The lack of a unified framework in which to view QMLs and their completeness properties puts pressure on those who develop, apply, and teach QML to work with the (allegedly) simplest systems, namely those that adopt the Barcan Formulas and predicate logic rules for the quantifiers. In these systems, the quantifier ranges over a fixed domain of possible individuals, so advocates of these logics are sometimes called possibilists. A literature has grown up rationalizing the choice of possibilist logics despite ordinary intuitions that the resulting theorems are too strong (Cresswell, 1991; Linsky and Zalta, 1994).Williamson (1998, p. 262) even takes the view that the complications to be faced within the weaker logics “are a warning sign of philosophical error”. It is the purpose of this paper to show that abandonment of the weaker QMLs is excessively fainthearted, since most QMLs can be given relatively simple formulations within one general framework. Given the straightforward nature of the systems and their completeness results, the purported complications evaporate, along with any philosophical warnings one might have associated with them
|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
Nuel Belnap & Thomas Müller (2013). BH-CIFOL: Case-Intensional First Order Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic (2-3):1-32.
Similar books and articles
Thomas J. McKay (1975). Essentialism in Quantified Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 4 (4):423 - 438.
H. Kushida & M. Okada (2003). A Proof-Theoretic Study of the Correspondence of Classical Logic and Modal Logic. Journal of Symbolic Logic 68 (4):1403-1414.
Bartosz Wieckowski, Modality Without Reference. An Alternative Semantics for Substitutional Quantified Modal Logic and its Philosophical Significance.
Ulrich Meyer (2009). 'Now' and 'Then' in Tense Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (2):229-247.
James W. Garson (2006). Modal Logic for Philosophers. Cambridge University Press.
Roman Kontchakov, Agi Kurucz & Michael Zakharyaschev (2005). Undecidability of First-Order Intuitionistic and Modal Logics with Two Variables. Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 11 (3):428-438.
Christopher Menzel (1991). The True Modal Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic 20 (4):331 - 374.
Peter Fritz (2013). Modal Ontology and Generalized Quantifiers. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (4):643-678.
Anil Gupta (1980). The Logic of Common Nouns: An Investigation in Quantified Modal Logic. Yale University Press.
Giovanna Corsi (2002). A Unified Completeness Theorem for Quantified Modal Logics. Journal of Symbolic Logic 67 (4):1483-1510.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads78 ( #21,921 of 1,679,360 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #60,351 of 1,679,360 )
How can I increase my downloads?