more on this theme     |     more from this thinker


Single Idea 8420

[filed under theme 19. Language / D. Propositions / 2. Abstract Propositions / b. Propositions as possible worlds ]

Full Idea

I identify a proposition with the set of possible worlds where it is true.

Gist of Idea

A proposition is a set of possible worlds where it is true

Source

David Lewis (Causation [1973], p.193)

Book Ref

'Causation', ed/tr. Sosa,E. /Tooley,M. [OUP 1993], p.193


A Reaction

As it stands, I'm baffled by this. How can 'it is raining' be a set of possible worlds? I assume it expands to refer to the truth-conditions, among possibilities as well as actualities. 'It is raining' fits all worlds where it is raining.


The 15 ideas from 'Causation'

If dispositions are more fundamental than causes, then they won't conceptually reduce to them [Bird on Lewis]
A theory of causation should explain why cause precedes effect, not take it for granted [Lewis, by Field,H]
It is just individious discrimination to pick out one cause and label it as 'the' cause [Lewis]
The counterfactual view says causes are necessary (rather than sufficient) for their effects [Lewis, by Bird]
Lewis has basic causation, counterfactuals, and a general ancestral (thus handling pre-emption) [Lewis, by Bird]
Counterfactual causation implies all laws are causal, which they aren't [Tooley on Lewis]
Lewis's account of counterfactuals is fine if we know what a law of nature is, but it won't explain the latter [Cohen,LJ on Lewis]
The modern regularity view says a cause is a member of a minimal set of sufficient conditions [Lewis]
A proposition is a set of possible worlds where it is true [Lewis]
Regularity analyses could make c an effect of e, or an epiphenomenon, or inefficacious, or pre-empted [Lewis]
My counterfactual analysis applies to particular cases, not generalisations [Lewis]
Determinism says there can't be two identical worlds up to a time, with identical laws, which then differ [Lewis]
For true counterfactuals, both antecedent and consequent true is closest to actuality [Lewis]
One event causes another iff there is a causal chain from first to second [Lewis]
I reject making the direction of causation axiomatic, since that takes too much for granted [Lewis]