more on this theme     |     more from this text

Single Idea 19032

[filed under theme 4. Formal Logic / D. Modal Logic ML / 3. Modal Logic Systems / h. System S5 ]

Full Idea

Wedgwood (2007:220) argues that S5 is undesirable because it excludes that necessary truths may have contingent grounds.

Gist of Idea

S5 is undesirable, as it prevents necessities from having contingent grounds

Source

Barbara Vetter (Potentiality [2015], 6.4 n5)

Book Ref

Vetter,Barbara: 'Potentiality: from Dispositions to Modality' [OUP 2015], p.213

A Reaction

Cameron defends the possibility of necessity grounded in contingency, against Blackburn's denial of it. It's interesting that we choose the logic on the basis of the metaphysics. Shouldn't there be internal reasons for a logic's correctness?

Related Ideas

Idea 14529 If something underlies a necessity, is that underlying thing necessary or contingent? [Blackburn, by Hale/Hoffmann,A]

Idea 15103 Blackburn fails to show that the necessary cannot be grounded in the contingent [Cameron]

The 43 ideas from Barbara Vetter

17993 Laws are relations of kinds, quantities and qualities, supervening on the essences of a domain [Vetter]
17953 Real definition fits abstracta, but not individual concrete objects like Socrates [Vetter]
17952 Modal accounts make essence less mysterious, by basing them on the clearer necessity [Vetter]
17954 Essence is a thing's necessities, but what about its possibilities (which may not be realised)? [Vetter]
17955 Possible worlds allow us to talk about degrees of possibility [Vetter]
17956 Closeness of worlds should be determined by the intrinsic nature of relevant objects [Vetter]
17958 The apparently metaphysically possible may only be epistemically possible [Vetter]
17957 Maybe possibility is constituted by potentiality [Vetter]
17959 Metaphysical necessity is even more deeply empirical than Kripke has argued [Vetter]
23705 A potentiality may not be a disposition, but dispositions are strong potentialities [Vetter, by Friend/Kimpton-Nye]
19009 Potentiality does the explaining in metaphysics; we don't explain it away or reduce it [Vetter]
19010 All possibility is anchored in the potentiality of individual objects [Vetter]
19008 The modern revival of necessity and possibility treated them as special cases of quantification [Vetter]
19012 The Humean supervenience base entirely excludes modality [Vetter]
19011 If worlds are sets of propositions, how do we know which propositions are genuinely possible? [Vetter]
19013 Possibility is a generalised abstraction from the potentiality of its bearer [Vetter]
19014 How can spatiotemporal relations be understood in dispositional terms? [Vetter]
19015 Grounding can be between objects ('relational'), or between sentences ('operational') [Vetter]
19016 We should think of dispositions as 'to do' something, not as 'to do something, if ....' [Vetter]
19017 Nomological dispositions (unlike ordinary ones) have to be continually realised [Vetter]
19018 Explanations by disposition are more stable and reliable than those be external circumstances [Vetter]
19019 Potentiality is the common genus of dispositions, abilities, and similar properties [Vetter]
19020 Grounding is a kind of explanation, suited to metaphysics [Vetter]
19022 Water has a potentiality to acquire a potentiality to break (by freezing) [Vetter]
19021 I have an 'iterated ability' to learn the violin - that is, the ability to acquire that ability [Vetter]
19023 Slippery slope arguments are challenges to show where a non-arbitrary boundary lies [Vetter]
19024 A determinate property must be a unique instance of the determinable class [Vetter]
19025 Potentialities may be too weak to count as 'dispositions' [Vetter]
19026 If time is symmetrical between past and future, why do they look so different? [Vetter]
19027 Potentiality logic is modal system T. Stronger systems collapse iterations, and necessitate potentials [Vetter]
19028 Possibilities are potentialities of actual things, but abstracted from their location [Vetter]
19029 It is necessary that p means that nothing has the potentiality for not-p [Vetter]
19030 Why does origin matter more than development; why are some features of origin more important? [Vetter]
19031 There are potentialities 'to ...', but possibilities are 'that ....'. [Vetter]
19032 S5 is undesirable, as it prevents necessities from having contingent grounds [Vetter]
19033 Deontic modalities are 'ought-to-be', for sentences, and 'ought-to-do' for predicates [Vetter]
19034 The world is either a whole made of its parts, or a container which contains its parts [Vetter]
19036 The Barcan formula endorses either merely possible things, or makes the unactualised impossible [Vetter]
19037 Are there possible objects which nothing has ever had the potentiality to produce? [Vetter]
19039 The view that laws are grounded in substance plus external necessity doesn't suit dispositionalism [Vetter]
19038 Dispositional essentialism allows laws to be different, but only if the supporting properties differ [Vetter]
19041 Presentists explain cross-temporal relations using surrogate descriptions [Vetter]
19040 We take origin to be necessary because we see possibilities as branches from actuality [Vetter]