9 ideas
10163 | Propositional modal logic has been proved to be complete [Kripke, by Feferman/Feferman] |
Full Idea: At the age of 19 Saul Kripke published a completeness proof of propositional modal logic. | |
From: report of Saul A. Kripke (A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic [1959]) by Feferman / Feferman - Alfred Tarski: life and logic Int V |
10760 | With possible worlds, S4 and S5 are sound and complete, but S1-S3 are not even sound [Kripke, by Rossberg] |
Full Idea: Kripke gave a possible worlds semantics to a whole range of modal logics, and S4 and S5 turned out to be both sound and complete with this semantics. Hence more systems could be designed. S1-S3 failed in soundness, leading to 'impossible worlds'. | |
From: report of Saul A. Kripke (A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic [1959]) by Marcus Rossberg - First-order Logic, 2nd-order, Completeness §4 |
16189 | The variable domain approach to quantified modal logic invalidates the Barcan Formula [Kripke, by Simchen] |
Full Idea: Kripke's variable domain approach to quantified modal logic famously invalidates the Barcan Formula. | |
From: report of Saul A. Kripke (A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic [1959]) by Ori Simchen - The Barcan Formula and Metaphysics §3 | |
A reaction: [p.9 and p.16] In a single combined domain all the possibilia must be present, but with variable domains objects in remote domains may not exist in your local domain. BF is committed to those possible objects. |
15132 | The Barcan formulas fail in models with varying domains [Kripke, by Williamson] |
Full Idea: Kripke showed that the Barcan formula ∀x□A⊃□∀xA and its converse fail in models which require varying domains. | |
From: report of Saul A. Kripke (A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic [1959]) by Timothy Williamson - Truthmakers and Converse Barcan Formula §1 | |
A reaction: I think this is why I reject the Barcan formulas for metaphysics - because the domain of metaphysics should be seen as varying, since some objects are possible in some contexts and not in others. Hmm… |
11989 | For Russell, expressions dependent on contingent circumstances must be eliminated [Kaplan] |
Full Idea: It is a tenet of Russell's theory that all expressions, and especially definite descriptions, whose denotation is dependent upon contingent circumstances must be eliminated. | |
From: David Kaplan (How to Russell a Frege-Church [1975], II) |
11990 | 'Haecceitism' says that sameness or difference of individuals is independent of appearances [Kaplan] |
Full Idea: The doctrine that we can ask whether this is the same individual in another possible world, and that a common 'thisness' may underlie extreme dissimilarity, or distinct thisnesses may underlie great resemblance, I call 'Haecceitism'. | |
From: David Kaplan (How to Russell a Frege-Church [1975], IV) | |
A reaction: Penelope Mackie emphasises that this doctrine, that each thing is somehow individuated, is not the same as believing in actual haecceities, specific properties which achieve the individuating. |
9668 | 'Haecceitism' is common thisness under dissimilarity, or distinct thisnesses under resemblance [Kaplan] |
Full Idea: That a common 'thisness' may underlie extreme dissimilarity or distinct thisnesses may underlie great resemblance I call 'haecceitism'. (I prefer the pronunciation Hex'-ee-i-tis-m). | |
From: David Kaplan (How to Russell a Frege-Church [1975], IV) | |
A reaction: [odd pronunciation, if 'haec' is pronounced haeek] The view seems to be very unpopular (e.g. with Lewis, Bird and Mumford). But there is an intuitive sense of whether or not two things are identical when they seem dissimilar. |
11991 | If quantification into modal contexts is legitimate, that seems to imply some form of haecceitism [Kaplan] |
Full Idea: If one regards the usual form of quantification into modal and other intensional contexts - modality de re - as legitimate (without special explanations), then one seems committed to some form of haecceitism. | |
From: David Kaplan (How to Russell a Frege-Church [1975], IV) | |
A reaction: That is, modal reference requires fixed identities, irrespective of possible changes in properties. Why could one not refer to objects just as bundles of properties, with some sort of rules about when it ceased to be that particular bundle (keep 60%?)? |
18033 | The meaning of a representation is its role in thought, perception or decisions [Block] |
Full Idea: According to conceptual role semantics, the meaning of a representation is the role of that representation in the cognitive life of the agent, for example, in perception, thought and decision-making. | |
From: Ned Block (Semantics, Conceptual Role [1998]) | |
A reaction: I never believe theories of this kind, because I always find myself asking 'what is the nature of this representation which enables it to play this role?'. |