more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Consideration of our ability to count objects across possibilities strongly favour both the Barcan formula and its converse.
Gist of Idea
Our ability to count objects across possibilities favours the Barcan formulas
Source
Timothy Williamson (Truthmakers and Converse Barcan Formula [1999], §3)
Book Ref
-: 'Dialectica' [-], p.267
A Reaction
I'm not sure that I can understand counting objects across possibilities. The objects themselves are possibilia, and possibilia seem to include unknowns. The unexpected is highly possible.
| 17209 | A thing is contingent if nothing in its essence determines whether or not it exists [Spinoza] |
| 5039 | If non-existents are possible, their existence would replace what now exists, which cannot therefore be necessary [Leibniz] |
| 16986 | That there might have been unicorns is false; we don't know the circumstances for unicorns [Kripke] |
| 17591 | Merely possible objects must be consistent properties, or haecceities [Inwagen] |
| 17590 | A merely possible object clearly isn't there, so that is a defective notion [Inwagen] |
| 18925 | If talking donkeys are possible, something exists which could be a talking donkey [Williamson, by Cameron] |
| 15142 | Our ability to count objects across possibilities favours the Barcan formulas [Williamson] |
| 13719 | Barcan Formula problem: there might have been a ghost, despite nothing existing which could be a ghost [Sider] |
| 19037 | Are there possible objects which nothing has ever had the potentiality to produce? [Vetter] |