more on this theme     |     more from this text


Single Idea 12469

[filed under theme 10. Modality / E. Possible worlds / 1. Possible Worlds / e. Against possible worlds ]

Full Idea

If we want our semantics for modality to give us insight into the truthmakers for modality, then possible worlds semantics is inadequate.

Gist of Idea

Possible worlds semantics gives little insight into modality

Source

Jonathan D. Jacobs (A Powers Theory of Modality [2010], §4.4)

Book Ref

-: 'Philosophical Studies' [-], p.17


A Reaction

[See the other ideas of Jacobs (and Jubien) for this] It is an interesting question whether a semantics for a logic is meant to give us insight into how things really are, or whether it just builds nice models. Satisfaction, or truth?

Related Idea

Idea 5483 Essentialists deny possible worlds, and say possibilities are what is compatible with the actual world [Ellis]


The 13 ideas from Jonathan D. Jacobs

Unlike correspondence, truthmaking can be one truth to many truthmakers, or vice versa [Jacobs]
We can base counterfactuals on powers, not possible worlds, and hence define necessity [Jacobs]
Concrete worlds, unlike fictions, at least offer evidence of how the actual world could be [Jacobs]
If some book described a possibe life for you, that isn't what makes such a life possible [Jacobs]
Possible worlds are just not suitable truthmakers for modality [Jacobs]
All modality is in the properties and relations of the actual world [Jacobs]
If structures result from intrinsic natures of properties, the 'relations' between them can drop out [Jacobs]
Powers come from concrete particulars, not from the laws of nature [Jacobs]
States of affairs are only possible if some substance could initiate a causal chain to get there [Jacobs]
Possibilities are manifestations of some power, and impossibilies rest on no powers [Jacobs]
Science aims at identifying the structure and nature of the powers that exist [Jacobs]
Possible worlds semantics gives little insight into modality [Jacobs]
Counterfactuals invite us to consider the powers picked out by the antecedent [Jacobs]