more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Linguistic representations of possible worlds have three problems: some descriptions are inconsistent (which worlds cannot be); we cannot have indiscernible descriptions (though some worlds might be so); and descriptions are limited by vocabulary.
Gist of Idea
Linguistic possible worlds have problems of inconsistencies, no indiscernibles, and vocabulary
Source
David Lewis (On the Plurality of Worlds [1986], 3.2)
Book Ref
Lewis,David: 'On the Plurality of Worlds' [Blackwell 2001], p.165
A Reaction
Lewis is wonderful at getting problems clearly on the table. I take the idea of possible worlds as linguistic entities to be a non-starter, because (as usual) animals do it too, when they think of possibilities, which even the dimmest ones must do.
| 11964 | Possible worlds are world-stories, maximal descriptions of whole non-existent worlds [Adams,RM, by Molnar] |
| 16285 | A possible world can be seen as a complete and consistent novel [Jeffrey] |
| 11850 | Not every story corresponds to a possible world [Wiggins] |
| 16286 | Linguistic possible worlds need a complete supply of unique names for each thing [Lewis] |
| 16287 | Maximal consistency for a world seems a modal distinction, concerning what could be true together [Lewis] |
| 9662 | Linguistic possible worlds have problems of inconsistencies, no indiscernibles, and vocabulary [Lewis] |
| 19493 | Governing possible worlds theory is the fiction that if something is possible, it happens in a world [Yablo] |
| 5751 | The truth of propositions at possible worlds are implied by the world, just as in books [Melia] |