more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 16957

[filed under theme 10. Modality / E. Possible worlds / 1. Possible Worlds / a. Possible worlds ]

Full Idea

The equation of a possible world with the way that the (actual) world might be is wrong: the way a distant world might be is not a way the world might be, but a way we might allow it to be given how some intervening world might be.

Gist of Idea

Possible worlds aren't how the world might be, but how a world might be, given some possibility

Source

Michael Dummett (Could There Be Unicorns? [1983], 8)

Book Ref

Dummett,Michael: 'The Seas of Language' [OUP 1993], p.347


A Reaction

The point here is that a system of possible worlds must include relative possibilities as well as actual possibilities. Dummett argues against S5 modal logic, which makes them all equal. Things impossible here might become possible. Nice.


The 32 ideas with the same theme [existence of non-actual possible worlds]:

The actual universe is the richest composite of what is possible [Leibniz]
There may be a world where dogs smell their game at a thousand leagues [Leibniz]
Leibniz narrows down God's options to one, by non-contradiction, sufficient reason, indiscernibles, compossibility [Leibniz, by Harré]
Each monad expresses all its compatible monads; a possible world is the resulting equivalence class [Leibniz, by Rumfitt]
Leibniz proposed possible worlds, because they might be evil, where God would not create evil things [Leibniz, by Stewart,M]
If something is true in all possible worlds then it is logically necessary [Russell]
In any possible world we feel that two and two would be four [Russell]
Each thing is in a space of possible facts [Wittgenstein]
The use of possible worlds is to sort properties (not to individuate objects) [Marcus (Barcan)]
Possible worlds aren't how the world might be, but how a world might be, given some possibility [Dummett]
Possible worlds clarify possibility, propositions, properties, sets, counterfacts, time, determinism etc. [Plantinga]
Instead of talking about possible worlds, we can always say "It is possible that.." [Kripke]
Asserting a possible property is to say it would have had the property if that world had been actual [Plantinga]
Possible worlds thinking has clarified the logic of modality, but is problematic in epistemology [Perry]
A 'centred' world is an ordered triple of world, individual and time [Stalnaker]
If it might be true, it might be true in particular ways, and possible worlds describe such ways [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds are ontologically neutral, but a commitment to possibilities remains [Stalnaker]
Possible worlds allow discussion of modality without controversial modal auxiliaries [Stalnaker]
There are no free-floating possibilia; they have mates in a world, giving them extrinsic properties [Lewis]
The actual world is a consistent combination of states, made of consistent property combinations [Jacquette]
Why does the 'myth' of possible worlds produce correct modal logic? [Shapiro]
We might eliminate 'possible' and 'necessary' in favour of quantification over possible worlds [Lowe]
What are these worlds, that being true in all of them makes something necessary? [Hale]
Knowledge of possible worlds is not causal, but is an ontology entailed by semantics [Read]
A world has 'access' to a world it generates, which is important in possible worlds semantics [Girle]
Possible worlds make it possible to define necessity and counterfactuals without new primitives [Melia]
In possible worlds semantics the modal operators are treated as quantifiers [Melia]
If possible worlds semantics is not realist about possible worlds, logic becomes merely formal [Melia]
Possible worlds could be real as mathematics, propositions, properties, or like books [Melia]
A Tarskian model can be seen as a possible state of affairs [Horsten/Pettigrew]
The 'spheres model' was added to possible worlds, to cope with counterfactuals [Horsten/Pettigrew]
Closeness of worlds should be determined by the intrinsic nature of relevant objects [Vetter]