|Possible World: entity that can be quantified over. There ist a dispute over the question whether possible worlds exist or are only assumed for purposes of proofs of completeness. See also actual world, modal logic, modal realism, realism, actualism, possibility, possibilia, quantification.|
Books on Amazon
|Possible Worlds||I 17
Possible worlds/StalnakerVsLewis: instead of actually existing worlds better ways how the world might have been.
M/Time/Stalnaker: There are many analogies between times and worlds - actualism: corresponds to presentism - Def presentism/(s): only the present exists and only the current point in time - - four-dimensionalism/Stalnaker: corresponds to modal realism - Def modal realism/(s): other worlds exist literally - Representative: David Lewis - Stalnaker: very few are realists in terms of possible world and times, but most are realists in terms of space.
M/StalnakerVsLewis: instead of something like "I and my surroundings" a way how the world is = property or state - Important argument: properties may exist uninstantiatedly.
M: is no thing of a certain kind, either - nor an individual - a possible world is that to which truth is relative - what people differentiate in their rational actions.
M: r: it is pointless to ask whether poss.w. satisfy certain conditions - E.g. Is there a possible world in which water is not H2O? This is pointless - the answer will always have the form of a necessary sentence: P-or-not-P - but doubt about that will be a doubt about the content of the sentence and not doubt about a possible world - the same goes for the problem that you might not believe a necessary truth. - ((s) because you have not understood it).
Possible worlds/Conditions: it is pointless to ask whether possible world meet certain conditions.
M/necessary/Stalnaker: ((s) > Kripke): if it is true, E.g. that water is necessarily H2O or e.g. that there are unattainable cardinal numbers, then these assertions express exactly this proposition, and the sentences that express these propositions tell us nothing about the nature of possible worlds - Stalnaker: therefore it is impossible to characterize the entire range of all the possibilities - for then we would know the way how the range of all possibilities is different from that how it could be -> Wittgenstein: you should remain silent about things that you cannot talk about - (Tractatus) - StalnakerVsWittgenstein: but that does not help, because pointing also must have a content - therefore Ramsey: ...nor whistling.
Possible worlds/Stalnaker: are not just an exercise of our imagination, but part of our actions - e.g. scientific explanations.
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003