more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 14702

[filed under theme 19. Language / C. Assigning Meanings / 10. Two-Dimensional Semantics ]

Full Idea

At first glance necessity and possibility can be fully expressed by quantifying over all possible worlds, but this cannot capture 'Possibly everything actually red is also shiny'. This needs a double-indexed framework, with worlds playing two roles.

Gist of Idea

If we introduce 'actually' into modal talk, we need possible worlds twice to express this

Source

Laura Schroeter (Two-Dimensional Semantics [2010], 1.2.1)

Book Ref

'Stanford Online Encyclopaedia of Philosophy', ed/tr. Stanford University [plato.stanford.edu], p.9


A Reaction

She points out that this also applies to tense logic, for the notion of 'now'. The point is that we not only need a set of possible worlds, but we also need a procedure (the 'Actuality' operator A or @) for picking out one of the worlds as special.


The 19 ideas from 'Two-Dimensional Semantics'

Semantic theories show how truth of sentences depends on rules for interpreting and joining their parts [Schroeter]
Simple semantics assigns extensions to names and to predicates [Schroeter]
'Federer' and 'best tennis player' can't mean the same, despite having the same extension [Schroeter]
Possible worlds semantics uses 'intensions' - functions which assign extensions at each world [Schroeter]
Possible worlds make 'I' and that person's name synonymous, but they have different meanings [Schroeter]
Array worlds along the horizontal, and contexts (world,person,time) along the vertical [Schroeter]
If we introduce 'actually' into modal talk, we need possible worlds twice to express this [Schroeter]
Superficial necessity is true in all worlds; deep necessity is thus true, no matter which world is actual [Schroeter]
Do we know apriori how we refer to names and natural kinds, but their modal profiles only a posteriori? [Schroeter]
2D semantics gives us apriori knowledge of our own meanings [Schroeter]
Your view of water depends on whether you start from the actual Earth or its counterfactual Twin [Schroeter]
Rationalists say knowing an expression is identifying its extension using an internal cognitive state [Schroeter]
Possible worlds semantics implies a constitutive connection between meanings and modal claims [Schroeter]
2D fans defend it for conceptual analysis, for meaning, and for internalist reference [Schroeter]
Contradictory claims about a necessary god both seem apriori coherent [Schroeter]
2D semantics can't respond to contingent apriori claims, since there is no single proposition involved [Schroeter]
Internalist meaning is about understanding; externalist meaning is about embedding in a situation [Schroeter]
In the possible worlds account all necessary truths are same (because they all map to the True) [Schroeter]
Semantic theory assigns meanings to expressions, and metasemantics explains how this works [Schroeter]