more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 15069

[filed under theme 10. Modality / E. Possible worlds / 2. Nature of Possible Worlds / a. Nature of possible worlds ]

Full Idea

An alternative conception of a possible world says it is constituted, not by the totality of facts, or of how things might be, but by the totality of circumstances, or how things might turn out.

Gist of Idea

Possible worlds may be more limited, to how things might actually turn out

Source

Kit Fine (Necessity and Non-Existence [2005], 02)

Book Ref

Fine,Kit: 'Modality and Tense' [OUP 2005], p.325


A Reaction

The general idea is to make a possible world more limited than in Idea 15068. It only contains properties arising from 'engagement with the world', and won't include timeless sentences. It is a bunch of possibilities, not of actualities?

Related Idea

Idea 15068 The actual world is a totality of facts, so we also think of possible worlds as totalities [Fine,K]


The 32 ideas with the same theme [overview of what we take possible worlds to be]:

Unlike the modern view of a set of worlds, Wittgenstein thinks of a structured manifold of them [Wittgenstein, by White,RM]
An imagined world must have something in common with the real world [Wittgenstein]
Commitment to possible worlds is part of our ideology, not part of our ontology [Hintikka]
Possible worlds aren't puzzling places to learn about, but places we ourselves describe [Kripke]
Probability with dice uses possible worlds, abstractions which fictionally simplify things [Kripke]
A possible world is a maximal possible state of affairs [Plantinga]
Possible worlds could be concrete, abstract, universals, sentences, or properties [Jackson]
Possible worlds are indices for a language, or concrete realities, or abstract possibilities [Perry]
Are possible worlds just qualities, or do they include primitive identities as well? [Adams,RM]
Possible worlds are properties [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds don't reduce modality, they regiment it to reveal its structure [Stalnaker]
I think of worlds as cells (rather than points) in logical space [Stalnaker]
We can take 'ways things might have been' as irreducible elements in our ontology [Stalnaker, by Lycan]
Kripke's possible worlds are methodological, not metaphysical [Stalnaker]
A possible world is the ontological analogue of hypothetical beliefs [Stalnaker]
Ersatz worlds represent either through language, or by models, or magically [Lewis]
Kripkean possible worlds are abstract maximal states in which the real world could have been [Soames]
Possible worlds just have to be 'maximal', but they don't have to be consistent [Salmon,N]
Possible worlds are maximal abstract ways that things might have been [Salmon,N]
Treating possible worlds as mental needs more actual mental events [Lycan]
Possible worlds must be made of intensional objects like propositions or properties [Lycan]
Possible worlds are points of logical space, rather like other times than our own [Forbes,G]
The actual world is a maximally consistent combination of actual states of affairs [Jacquette]
Possible worlds may be more limited, to how things might actually turn out [Fine,K]
The actual world is a totality of facts, so we also think of possible worlds as totalities [Fine,K]
The actual world is a possible world, so we can't define possible worlds as 'what might have been' [Fine,K]
Four theories of possible worlds: conceptualist, combinatorial, abstract, or concrete [Hoffman/Rosenkrantz]
Maybe possible worlds are just sets of possible tropes [Bacon,John]
'Modal realists' believe in many concrete worlds, 'actualists' in just this world, 'ersatzists' in abstract other worlds [Paul,LA]
Possible worlds must be abstract, because two qualitatively identical worlds are just one world [Markosian]
We should reject distinct but indiscernible worlds [Cameron]
Structural universals might serve as possible worlds [Forrest, by Lewis]