Dictionary of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffes

 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

Enhanced Search:
Search term 1: Author or Term Search term 2: Author or Term


together with


The author or concept searched is found in the following 15 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Accessibility Bigelow I 126
Accessibility relation: can be restricted: for example, by the requirement that a possible world w from the accessible possible world u does not contain any individuals that do not also contain u. That is, that the one world is only a re-structured one of the other. This would e.g. contradict Lewis counterpart theory. ---
I 136
Definition weak centering/accessibility/Lewis/Bigelow/Pargetter: we will say that degrees of accessibility are weakly centered if no possible world is more accessible from a given possible world than this possible world itself. This is best satisfied with: d(w, w) = 0.
N.B.: this ensures that some additional sentences will be true in all possible worlds, in addition to those guaranteed by the above axioms. These are derivable as theorems if we take the following axioms: A9 (reflexivity) and
A16. (B would > would g)> (b> g)
Everyday translation: no world can be more accessible to a world than this world is accessible to itself. This leaves open the possibility that some possible worlds have the accessibility "zero-distance" from the world w.
Definition strong centering/Lewis/Bigelow/Pargetter: (in the semantics for counterfactual conditionals): no possible world can be accessible from a given world as this world is accessible from itself. This is best satisfied:
If w is not equal to u, then either d(w, u) is undefined or d (w, u) > 0.
This semantic condition allows a completeness proof for the axiom system which we obtain by adding the axiom of the strong centering to the above axioms:
(a u b)> (a would > would b)
Counterfactual logic/Lewis/Bigelow/Pargetter: with these axioms, we get Lewis' favored counterfactual logic.
BigelowVsStrong centering.
Modal logic/Axiom system/Bigelow/Pargetter: our system will be the one Lewis calls VW: V ": "variably strict", "W". "Weakly centered".
---
139
Accessibility Relation/Bigelow/Pargetter: Problem: we must restrict it, and for a proof of completeness for S5, we must show that it is reflexive, transitive, and symmetric. S5/Canonical Model/Bigelow/Pargetter: does not only contain the Leibnizian necessity (truth in all worlds).
S5: is interesting because it allows a reductionist access to possible worlds.
Necessity: in the canonical model a proposition is necessarily true if it is true in all accessible possible worlds.
Possible worlds: when they are designed as the maximum consistent extensions of S5, they disintegrate into different equivalence classes. ((s) i.e. for each world there is an additional sentence describing an individual with possibly different descriptions which do not contradict the other sentences).
Equivalence classes/accessibility/Bigelow/Pargetter: within an equivalence class, all worlds are accessible to one another. But between equivalence classes there is no accessibility from one possible world to the other.
((s), then the maximum consistent extensions must be something other than I suspected, then an extension will modify all existing propositions and makes them incomparable with a subset of the previous consistent set).
Accessibility/canonical model/Bigelow/Pargetter: in a canonical model, not all possible worlds are accessible to one another. We show it this way:
Fa: (spelling: latin a) be an atomic sentence that can be added to the axioms of S5, or its negation, whereby the result being a maximally consistent set or world. With this, we are constructing a world where Fa is true. If it were accessible from all other worlds, MFa would be true in all possible worlds. But a proposition which is true in all worlds must be a theorem. But we know that Fa is not
Problem: R2 (universal substitution) would ensure that Mα would be true for every α, even if α = (b u ~ b).
Interpretation/Bigelow/Pargetter: if the intended interpretation of S5 is Leibnizean, as we hope ((s) necessity = truth in all worlds) then it follows that this intended interpretation of S5 is not captured by the canonical model.
Possible world/Bigelow/Pargetter: that supports what we want to show, namely that possible worlds are not sets of sentences.
Accessibility/Bigelow/Pargetter: ...and it also shows that the accessibility relation...
---
I 140
... which is relevant to alethic modal logic, is not an equivalence relation. Logical truth/Bigelow/Pargetter: is truth in all possible worlds (pro Leibniz!) not merely truth in all accessible worlds?
---
I 242
Accessibility Relation/Accessibility/Bigelow/Pargetter: nevertheless, we do not believe that the accessibility relation supervenes to properties and relations of the first level of the possible worlds, but on higher level universes! Two worlds can be perfectly similar in terms of universals of the first level and still have different accessibility relations! Humean World/Bigelow/Pargetter: is an example for the failure of the supervenience of the 1st level of the accessibility relation.
For example, "all Fs are Gs", whereby F and G are universals of the 1st level, and higher-level universals that supervene on them.
---
I 243
Counterfactual conditional: then also counterfactual conditionals should be valid like: "If this thing had been an F, it would have been a G".
We would never be sure if it was a law, even if there were no exceptions. This uncertainty is reflected in uncertainty as to whether the counterfactual conditional is true.
Even if we live in a world with laws, we allow the possibility that this world is a Humean world. It might be that the generalization is correct, but without necessity.
The world would look the same in both cases.
Humean World/Bigelow/Pargetter: is, with respect to the actual world, precisely a world, which is the same, without laws. For other worlds there would be other Humean worlds.
---
I 245
Accessibility/Bigelow/Pargetter: nevertheless, there are strong reasons to believe in a supervenience of the accessibility relation on the contents of the world. This allows us to assume that the contents of the 1st level do not exhaust all the contents of the world. Combinatorial theories. Therefore, must accept higher-level universals, and hence the property theory of the world's properties.
Universals/Natural Law/Bigelow/Pargetter: Higher-level universals are the key to laws.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Brains in a Vat Chalmers I 75
Brains in a Vat/Skepticism/Chalmers: also these problems (such as problems with causality, >Humean world) arise for reasons of logical supervenience because facts about the external world are not logically supervening on facts about our experience. >Supervenience/Chalmers.

Cha I
D. Chalmers
The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996

Cha II
D. Chalmers
Constructing the World Oxford 2014

Causation Bigelow I 276
Causation/Bigelow/Pargetter: we should understand it as a relation between events (in a broad sense). Speech of causation/causality/Davidson/Bigelow/Pargetter. We take over from Davidson (1980):
Problem: singular causal statements. E.g.
"The short circuit caused the fire."
Truth conditions: the statements can be true because the relation exists, even if it is clear that short circuits are neither sufficient nor necessary conditions for fire.
Generalization: can be true, but only if we reword the sentence.
Causal Relation/Davidson/Bigelow/Pargetter: exists, if and only iff there is a way of describing the events so that they can be brought under a general causal law.
BigelowVsDavidson: (see above) the causal relation is rather local than global.
BigelowVsDavidson: the nature of the causal relation is not derived from the existence of an underlying law.
---
I 277
Bigelow/Pargetter pro Davidson: however, the truth conditions of a singular causal statement require the existence of a relation (but not under a description). Causal statements/Bigelow/Pargetter: some must be rewritten: E.g.
"The stone caused the window pane to break."
Must be rewritten to:
"That the stone touched the window pane caused the window pane to break."
E.g.
"Becker's easy victory over Lendl surprised the commentators."
Must be changed:
"Becker's victory surprised ... and if it had not been easy, it would not have been surprising."
Bigelow pro Davidson: So far his theory is convincing.
Causality/causal statements/Bigelow/Pargetter: sometimes we must also make general causal statements:
For this, we need types of events or properties of events.
Causal statements: must then be counterfactual conditionals: E.g.
"If Lendl's defeat had not been so clear, it would not have been surprising."
E.g.
"The antidote slowed the death of Protheros."
This seems to require causal relations between characteristics of events (e.g. lightness, slowing).
---
I 278
Universals: are sometimes used here. Sometimes it is about unique events, sometimes about characteristics of events. Problem: why should the relations between such different entities be summarized? Why should they all be causal?
Solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: we must assume that they all supervene on a basic causal relation. This can not be specified in modal terms.
Causal Relation/Bigelow/Pargetter: is largely unknown to us. It is best to recognize it when it is encountered.
---
I 279
Our task is now to figure out what it is. This is a metaphysical, not a semantic task. ---
I 288
Causation/Explanation/Bigelow/Pargetter: Let's assume that we can close the gap between everyday forces and the fundamental forces. ---
I 289
Forces/Bigelow/Pargetter: how do we justify that we have chosen forces for the explanation? Explanation/David Fair/FairVsBigelow/Bigelow/Pargetter: (Fair 1979): he selects instead of forces energy flow ((s) energy transfer > Gerhard Vollmer).
Forces/Bigelow/Pargetter: we take them because they occur in Newton's 3rd law. For us, there are two instances of causation then, because there are two forces.
Fair: for him it is an instance of energy flow and thus a causation.
BigelowVsFair: his theory does not provide the right relations of higher levels between universals that we need.
Energy flow/energy transfer/Fair/Bigelow/Pargetter: this term requires the identification of packages of energy in time.
Energy/Cause/Effect/Fair/Bigelow/Pargetter: The energy present in the effect is numerically identical to the energy lost in the cause.
Problem/BigelowVsFair: but there is also cause, where no energy is transmitted, but only impulse. Therefore, it needs a shared access. Then the causation is hardly a unifying element in any explanation.
Problem: besides, there are cases where both energy and impulse are transmitted, and how should one choose then? The causation cannot be identified with both. ((s) also BigelowVsVollmer).
---
I 290
BigelowVsFair: besides, energy transmission and pulse transmission supervene on properties and relations. Therefore, according to Fair, there can be no Humean world, which coincides with a causal possible world in all properties of the 1st level. This should, however, be possible (see Chapter 5): a theory that allows this must also recognize causation as a relation of a higher level. Fair cannot do this.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Forces Bigelow I 282
Forces/Bigelow/Pargetter: (Lit: Bigelow, Ellis Pargetter 1988) Thesis: forces are relations and a subspecies of causal relations. Here: stronger thesis all causes supervene on forces. Forces are higher-level relations between structures that involve individual events and their properties.
Forces/tradition: intermediary between causes and effects.
Intermediate/middle position/intermediate position/BigelowVsTradition/HumeVsTradition: Problem: Regress: if F is used as an intermediary between C and E, why is there not another mediator between F and E? Requirement for this argument is however: the assumption that C, E, and F are entities of the same type.
Wrong solution: to assume that forces are "immediate causes". For this would again require immediate causes.
Wrong solution: to construct forces as dispositional properties: either dispositions of an object for changes or a field for any effects.
Disposition/Bigelow/Pargetter: is not itself part of a causal chain. So we cannot close a gap in the chain with it. Therefore there is no threat of regression here.
Nevertheless, dispositions simply do not have the right ontological category for forces. We can give a complete causal explanation without mentioning dispositions. For the causation is given by the physical basis of dispositions.
---
I 283
Disposition/Bigelow/Pargetter: supervenes, but does not participate in the causal process. But they can be there if they are not active, while forces cannot do that. Forces: take part in the causal process. If they are not active, they do not exist - unlike dispositions.
Forces/Ellis/Bigelow/Pargetter (1988): Thesis: they constitute causal relations. They are not themselves causes, but a relation between cause and effect. As a commonality between quite different phenomena.
They should also show the commonality of laws, even if they are formulated very differently.
Law/Forces/Ellis/Bigelow/Pargetter: inversely, similarly constructed laws may involve quite different forces, e.g. the proportion of the inversed square.
New/Bigelow/Pargetter: recently, we no longer identify an instance of a causal relation with a single force (see below). New: different fundamental forces join forces to form fundamental causes.
We keep the other arguments:
Forces and fundamental causes must be relations of a higher level between events, for, as a relation of first level, they would make a Humean world impossible.
Property complex/Bigelow/Pargetter: they are what is put into relation by forces. Each has as a constituent a number of properties and relations of 1st level. All will also be there in a Humean world. Only in the actual world there are the cohesive forces, and these are external relations.
---
I 284
Actual world/Bigelow/Pargetter: even in our world there may be other instances of these property complexes which are not in these causal relations. This is due to the local nature of the causal relations. ---
I 284
Stock: forces: realistic view: Bigelow/Pargetter, Ellis 1988: either the components or the resulting forces are real (not both, otherwise double causation) - Vs: Cartwright 1980, 1983) Forces/Ellis/Bigelow/Pargetter: either, the components of forces are real or the resulting forces are real.
For example, there may be a resultant force of 0, because forces neutralize if they deviate from 0.
Problem: the components and the resulting forces cannot all be real, otherwise we would have overdetermination or double causation.
Realistic view: must be decided from case to case whether it sees the components or the resulting forces as real.
For example, we must sometimes assume different relative strengths of components to explain a resulting force.
Reality/Bigelow/Pargetter: the reality of the components is sometimes forced upon us by our considerations. For example, three protons, shielded from interference from the outside, one in the middle of a line between the other two. The predicted movement of the outer towards the outside will involve forces that exist between the two outer as well as between them and that in the middle. Nevertheless, the principle of force and opposing force (here: action and reaction) demands that the middle proton is exposed to counter forces, which together cause it to remain at rest.
---
I 285
On the other hand. For example, in a situation, a particle can only move perpendicular to a real force. Solution: we assume two fictitious forces, which are perpendicular to each other. This is imposed on us in the situation. The choice is arbitrary, as is orthogonality. And not all can be real, for otherwise we would have overdetermination. In this situation, the resulting force is real, not the components.
Causal Relation/Solution/Bigelow/Pargetter: since sometimes the resulting force must be assumed as real, sometimes the components (depending on the physical situation) the causal relation should be explained as a relation of higher level between aggregates of forces.
Forces/quantum mechanics/Bigelow/Pargetter: in the quantum mechanics one does not use forces. For example, one does not say that a photon exerts a force on an electron.
Bigelow/Pargetter: however, we treat these cases as analogous because they appear to us to be similar enough. (See Heathcote 1989).
Field/Bigelow/Pargetter: also in the relation between field and particle, we allow ourselves to speak of forces and causation.
---
I 286
But we rather speak of interaction between two fields as between field and particle. Quantum mechanics/Bigelow/Pargetter: "Interactions" are the legitimate heirs of the traditional "forces".
Field/VsBigelow/Bigelow/Pargetter: there are also cases where a field does not interact with a particle, but is nevertheless produced. This seems to contradict our theory. If a field is formed from a particle, one cannot speak of forces. An electric particle exerts no force on its own electric field. Nevertheless, it precisely causes this field.
BigelowVsVs: this is not a case of causation. The argument presupposes a separation of particle and field, which is not accepted by anybody. There is rather a unity. The field is part of the "essence" of the particle. This needs, however, to be examined in the light of further scientific development.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Generality Bigelow I 232
Natural Laws/Realism/Hume/Bigelow/Pargetter: a Humean theory of natural laws cannot be as realistic as ours. >Humean world. Generalisation/Regularity/Hume: the Humean can be realistic with regard to generalisations.
---
I 233
"Total generality"/"pure" generality/Hume/BigelowVsHume/Bigelow/Pargetter: may not contain a reference to an individual: It is too weak and too strong.
a) too strong: for example, Kepler's laws refer to all planets but also to an individual, the sun.
b) too weak: it is still not a law. For example, that everything moves towards the center of the earth.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Humean World Flusser
Fl I
V. Flusser
Kommunikologie Mannheim 1996

Humean World Humean World: a world without causality - phenomenally like our world. See also David K. Lewis, Humean supervenience, Humean mosaic.

Humean World Cartwright I 40
Def Humean world/Lewis/Cartwright: a world that is just like ours, except that there are no causal laws in it. ((s) Therefeore there is no cause!) but all temporal sequences of events, properties, etc., and also laws of association are equal - the question what difference do causal laws make in our world is then put succinctly: is there for each possible world a corresponding Humean world? - Cartwright: No, because we are not always able to dispense with causal laws in favor of association - ((s) see above.
I 26
For the connection of laws of association with causal laws, C).
I 41
A Humean world would always be causally homogeneous - if anything increases the probability of something else, it will not be a Humean world.

Car I
N. Cartwright
How the laws of physics lie Oxford New York 1983

CartwrightR I
R. Cartwright
A Neglected Theory of Truth. Philosophical Essays, Cambridge/MA pp. 71-93
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

CartwrightR II
R. Cartwright
Ontology and the theory of meaning Chicago 1954

Humean World Esfeld I 297f
Humean supervenience/Lewis: the world is a mosaic of local states of particulars (single facts). It is a simple system of external relations of space-time intervals. There is no difference without a distinction in the arrangement of properties - all supervenes on everything - point properties are always intrinsic.

Es I
M. Esfeld
Holismus Frankfurt/M 2002

Humean World Lewis V IX
Humean supervenience/HS/Lewis: Thesis: everything in the world is a large mosaic of local facts - there is a geometry: a system of external relations of spatiotemporal distances between points - at the points we have local qualities, perfectly natural intrinsic properties - everything is an arrangement of qualities (AoQ). Everything supervenes on it. - Important argument: there is no distinction without difference. - That does not mean that two possible worlds could not be different without having a difference in the AoQ. Cf. >Causality/Hume.

Example 1) possible worlds with Humean supervenience, 2) possible worlds without! - ((s) i.e. Humean supervenience is contingent). - Lewis: for our inner sphere of possibilities there is no such distinction.
---
VII
Arrow of time: only in one direction - the Humean supervenience has to consider this asymmetry. - Humean supervenience/(s): does not mean here that causality is denied. ---
V X
Materialism/Humean supervenience/Lewis: materialism is a metaphysics that is to confirm the truth of known physics - Humean supervenience: it may be that the Humean supervenience is true and all our physics wrong. ---
V 111
Humean supervenience/Coincidence/Lewis: If the Humean supervenience is wrong, there is a fatal counter e.g., which is made by coincidences - then coincidences and coincidence theories do not supervene on facts - Problem: a theory of coincidence is not something that itself may only have a certain chance - (which also says the Principal Principle PP) - an equally likely deviant pattern would lead to an entirely different coincidence theory - right: chances are contingent because they depend on contingent facts, but not because they depended on a theory of coincidence - then the Humean supervenience is maintained. ---
Schwarz I 112
Humean supervenience/Lewis/Schwarz: From description which property exists at point X and which at point y we learn which properties these are, thus in which the laws of nature apply.

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Lewis I (a)
David K. Lewis
An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (b)
David K. Lewis
Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (c)
David K. Lewis
Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis II
David K. Lewis
"Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Lewis IV
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

Lewis V
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

Lewis VI
David K. Lewis
Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LewisCl
Clarence Irving Lewis
Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991


Schw I
W. Schwarz
David Lewis Bielefeld 2005
Humean World Stalnaker I 103
Humean supervenience/materialism/Stalnaker: thesis: laws and causal powers supervene on regularities. Humean supervenience: Humean supervenience needs criteria for cross world identity.

Stalnaker I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003

Humean World Chalmers I 75
Humean world/Chalmers: is a world which is phenomenologically indistinguishable from ours, but where there is no causality, is not excluded. This is the case because facts about causation are not logically supervening on physical facts. Processes could turn out to be cosmic coincidences. Beliefs about causality are not as imposed on us like beliefs about biology (as dependent on microphysical structures).

Cha I
D. Chalmers
The Conscious Mind Oxford New York 1996

Cha II
D. Chalmers
Constructing the World Oxford 2014

Humean World Jackson Lewis V 125
Definition Humean World/Hume World/Causality/Jackson/Lewis: (Jackson 1977)(1): a Humean World is a possible world in which all single facts are exactly the same as in ours, only that there are no causes. Every regular conjunction is random. Lewis: I'm not sure if there's any coincidence in Jackson's world. If so, then the false laws are like our false laws about the lifetime (of atoms or humans).

Schwarz I 111
Humesche Supervenienz/Schwarz: eine Minimalversion, die Lewis aber zu schwach ist wäre: wann immer eine Welt ohne fremdartige Eigenschaften in der Verteilung der exakt übereinstimmt, stimmt sie auch in jeder anderen (qualitativen) Hinsicht mit unserer überein. (vgl. die analoge Def Physikalismus (Jackson 1994a(2),§2 und Chalmers 1996a(3),38 41).

1. Frank Jackson [1977]: “Statements about Universals”. Mind, 86: 427–429
2. Frank Jackson [1994a]: “Armchair Metaphysics”. In John O’Leary Hawthorne und Michaelis Michael
(ed.), Philosophy in Mind, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 23–42
3.David J. Chalmers [1996a]: The Conscious Mind. New York: Oxford University Press

Jackson I
Frank C. Jackson
From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis Oxford 2000


Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Lewis I (a)
David K. Lewis
An Argument for the Identity Theory, in: Journal of Philosophy 63 (1966)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (b)
David K. Lewis
Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (c)
David K. Lewis
Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis II
David K. Lewis
"Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Lewis IV
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

Lewis V
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

Lewis VI
David K. Lewis
Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LewisCl
Clarence Irving Lewis
Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991

Schw I
W. Schwarz
David Lewis Bielefeld 2005
Humean World Bigelow I 243
Humean World/slippery slope argument/Jackson/Bigelow/Pargetter: (Jackson 1977a) pro Humean World: (slippery slope) For example, a world in which laws of the 1st level are not only not necessary, but also have exceptions. For example, suppose it is pure coincidence whether an F is a G or not. Any non-G would be a contingent thing that would not have existed. If it exists, it does not affect any F.
Then there is a world where it is also coincidental whether an F is a G, but where there is one F less, which is a non-G. From this world we can deduce the existence of another world that still has one less F, which is a non-G. etc. In the end, this proves that there is a world where every F has a 0.5 chance to be a G and yet all F's are G's!
This is completely consistent with a theory of probability theory.
From this we conclude that it is quite possible that there is a Humean World for every possible world.
Humean World/Bigelow/Pargetter: is easy to define when we are dealing with laws in the form of simple sentences (describing regularities). It is more difficult with more complex shapes. (See below Chapter 6).
Accessibility/Bigelow/Pargetter: the Humean World obliges us to an accessibility relation that does not supervene on properties of the 1st level and relations.
---
I 245
Counterfactual conditionals: those that are valid for laws in the actual world fail in the Humean World. Therefore, the accessibility of the Humean world would differ from the actual world in its accessibility without differing from its properties of the 1st level. Accessibility/Bigelow/Pargetter: nevertheless, there are strong reasons to believe in a supervenience of the accessibility relation on the contents of the world. This leads us to assume that the contents of the 1st level do not exhaust all the contents of the world.
Combinatorial theories: they must therefore adopt universals of higher level and therefore also the property theory of world properties.
---
I 279
Causal World/Bigelow/Pargetter: be a world in which some things cause some others. How many such worlds may there be? Some authors: all worlds are causal worlds. From reflections on individuality.
Individual/some authors/Bigelow/Pargetter: according to some theories, they are just "bundles of properties". Question, what holds them together? Thesis: properties are held together causally.
Causal world/some authors/Bigelow/Pargetter: say that every possible world is causal because no possible world is timeless.
Time/Bigelow/Pargetter: we believe in the causal theory of the time arrow and in the asymmetry of past and future, but not in a causal theory of time itself. Therefore, we do not think that all possible worlds are causal. We believe that there are Humean Worlds and Heimson Worlds. What we need now is a Humean world.
Humean World/Bigelow/Pargetter: it does not matter whether it is accessible or not. Only their existence counts. We need to show their logical possibility. (i.e. the possibility of a world like ours in terms of regularities of the 1st level, but without causes and without laws).
---
I 280
Modality: the difference between the actual world and a Humean world cannot be merely modal. Modal differences must be based on differences in the content of the possible world. They cannot be identical in terms of their content and can still be modally different. There must be something present in the causal world, and absent in the non-causal. Definition Humean World/Bigelow/Pargetter: it therefore cannot be defined by the absence of causality. We define it as a world that corresponds to ours on the 1st level of properties and relations. But they differ in relation to relations between properties and relations of relations. They differ in terms of higher-level universals. Some of these will not supervene on those of the 1st level.
Definition Cause/Bigelow/Pargetter: is a relation of the 2nd level between events. (Relation between properties). It does not supervene on intrinsic properties of the 1st Level of events.
The relations of the 2nd level apply contingently if we allow Humean Worlds.
I.e. effect and cause could also occur, with the same properties of the 1st level, if they are not in the relevant relations of the 2nd level. These are external.
Events: can have the same properties of the 1st level and yet still differ in properties of the 2nd level. Therefore, the Humean world can be similar to the actual one.
---
I 281
If they occur in the same possible world, on the other hand, they will be the same on both levels. (Because we treat them as universals). Degree/Level/Order/Terminology/Bigelow/Pargetter: therefore, one match on the 1st level implies a match of 2nd degree (sic) for all event pairs in the same world.
Degree/Properties: (see above I 53) Properties 2nd degree: the commonality of properties. For example, green includes all shades of green.
Causation: but because of their local character (see above) it may be that the pairs of events are causally different! This means that causation is a relation of the 2nd level which does not supervene, neither on properties of the 1st Level, nor on the 2nd degree and relations.
N.B.: causation connects not only universals, but structures that involve both. Universals of higher level and individual items.
Causal relation/Bigelow/Pargetter: must therefore be of a higher level itself. Question: Which properties and relations do they constitute? For this, we look at another difference between the Humean world and the actual world.
Definition Berkeley World/Bigelow/Pargetter: one in which causation is an act of will (of God). Berkeley, for example, thought that the distant planets could not possibly exert a force on the sun. So it was God who caused the sun to be moved away a little from its place.
Hume: removed the act of will from the Berkeley World and so his world became a world without causation.
Humean World/Bigelow/Pargetter: is first and foremost a world without powers.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Philosophy James Diaz-Bone I 139
Philosophy/Pluralism/James: The Philosophy of AND and the SOMETHING: The connections between the elements and the ideas must be just as real as the elements, parts or imagination. Connection: "It is possible that some parts of the world are only loosely linked by the word "and". These parts come and go without affecting the others.
There is no single thing that would encircle all the others, even when things are all interrelated.
Pluralism: pluralism rejects the decision whether things are absolutely unrelated (absolute pluralism) or all are connected (absolute monism).
---
I 140
Pluralism/James: with this his pluralism claimes to grasp the "grayscale" of reality. Philosophy of SOMETHING. Every part of the world is linked to other parts in some respects, in others not. Cf. >"Mosaic", >Humean World.


James I
R. Diaz-Bone/K. Schubert
William James zur Einführung Hamburg 1996

The author or concept searched is found in the following 6 controversies.
Disputed term/author/ism Author Vs Author
Entry
Reference
Correspondence Theory Hume Vs Correspondence Theory I 234
Human Theories/Laws of Nature/VsCorrespondence Theory/Bigelow/Pargetter: Theories in the style of Hume (without assuming causlity) are rivals of the correspondence theory. Cf. >Causality/Hume, >Natural laws, >Humean world. Coherence Theory: Humeans pro. Humeans tend to assume coherence (coherence of a system of statements). >Coherence theory.
D. Hume
I Gilles Delueze David Hume, Frankfurt 1997 (Frankreich 1953,1988)
II Norbert Hoerster Hume: Existenz und Eigenschaften Gottes aus Speck(Hg) Grundprobleme der großen Philosophen der Neuzeit I Göttingen, 1997
Fair, D Bigelow Vs Fair, D I 289
Forces/Bigelow/Pargetter: how can we justify that we have chosen forces as an explanation?. Explanation/David Fair/FairVsBigelow/Bigelow/Pargetter: (Fair 1979): He choses energy flow instead forces ((s) energy transmission> Gerhard Vollmer).
Forces/Bigelow/Pargetter: we use them, because they appear in Newton’s 3rd law. So there are two instances of causation for us, because there are two forces.
Fair: for him it is one instance of energy flow and thus a causation.
BigelowVsFair: his theory does not provide the proper relations between universals of a higher level that we need.
Energy flow/energy transmission/Fair/Bigelow/Pargetter: this concept requires the identification of units (packages) of energy in time.
Energy/Cause/Effect/Fair/Bigelow/Pargetter: the energy that is present in the effect is numerically identical with the energy that is lost in the cause. (Strand).
Problem/BigelowVsFair: there are also causations, where no energy is transmitted, but only momentum! Therefore, he needs a divided approach. Then the causation is hardly a unifying element in an explanation.
Problem: furthermore: there are cases where both energy and momentum are transferred, and how should one decide then? Causation cannot be identified with both. ((s) also BigelowVsVollmer).
I 290
BigelowVsFair: furthermore, energy transmission and momentum transmission supervene over properties and relations. Therefore, there can be no Humean world according to fair, which coincides with a causal possible world in all 1st stage properties. However, this should be possible (see above Chapter 5): A theory which allows that must recognize causation as a relation of a higher level. Fair cannot do that.

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990
Hume, D. Cartwright Vs Hume, D. I 10
Causation/Causal explanation/CartwrightVsHume: the laws of association are not sufficient to explain the difference between effective strategies (e.g. fight against malaria) and ineffective ones. Causal laws: are needed just as well. Simpson’s Paradox/Probability//Statistics/Causal explanation/Cartwright: was used by many authors as a counter-E.g. to probabilistic models of causation.
I 42
Humeean world/Cartwright: this type of example (Figure 1) brings comfort to the representatives of the Humeean world. HumeVsCausal laws: the representatives reject them, because they have no independent access to them. They consider themselves able to determine laws of association, but they think that they will never have the causal initial information to apply condition C. If they are lucky, they do not need this initial knowledge: Perhaps they live in a world that is not a Humean world. ((s) because then this knowledge would be irrelevant). CartwrightVsHume: but a Humean world might still be one in which causal laws could be inferred from the laws of association.
I 61
Force//Hume: it is wrong to distinguish between a force and its exercise. (Treatise of Human Nature, Oxford 1978, p 311). CartwrightVsHume: we need exactly this apparent distinction here. Causal force/Law of gravity/Cartwright: says that two bodies have the power to produce a force Gm m’/r², but they do not manage to exercise it. (Because other forces are at play). So the law does not speak of the behavior of the bodies, but of the powers they have. Problem: the facts-view cannot be given up so easily.

Car I
N. Cartwright
How the laws of physics lie Oxford New York 1983

CartwrightR I
R. Cartwright
A Neglected Theory of Truth. Philosophical Essays, Cambridge/MA pp. 71-93
In
Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994

CartwrightR II
R. Cartwright
Ontology and the theory of meaning Chicago 1954
Lewis, D. Stalnaker Vs Lewis, D. Bigelow I 117
StalnakerVsLewis: (1968(1), 1981(2)) defends the conditional proposition of the excluded third against Lewis.
Lewis V 183
"hidden property"/LewisVs: "My opponent": thinks that no real probability but a "fake" probability is in play. (see above) E.g. 88%,3%). (s) A "given variation" which then comes into force if c is withdrawn. Lewis: if this is true then it would be okay, then e would be somehow predetermined. It would be so to speak easier for the counterfactual conditional (co.co.).
LewisVs: but we still have to accept real probability.
Opponent: sounds like Stalnaker if he says: e would have happened either with c or without c. But his position is not the same although he accepts the same disjunction of co.co. and Stalnaker's defenses do not help him.
Opponent: thinks that there are two relevant ways how the world could be, one would make a co.co. true, the other way the other. Thus the disjunction is in any case true.
StalnakerVs: (Lewis pro): there is only one relevant way of how the world is and it makes none of the co.co. definitely true or false.
Ontology/semantics/StalnakerVsLewis: the two co.co. are true or false relative to alternative arbitrary resolutions of a semantic indeterminacy. ((s) Semantic assumptions shall make ontological assumptions superfluous).
V 184
What causes that the co.co. does not determine the truth is that different solutions involve different approaches. But any solution makes the one or the other true, the disjunction is certainly true despite the complementary vagueness of the disjoint. This alleged semantic indeterminacy is not a real property in the world.
Stalnaker differs with me in a small semantic question, with my opponents in a great ontological question.

Schwarz I 60
Counterpart/c.p./counterpart theory/c.p.theory/counterpart relation/c.p.r./StalnakerVsLewis: if you already allow almost any relations as counterpart relation you could also use non-qualitative relationships. (Stalnaker 1987a)(3): then you can reconcile the counterpart with Haecceitism: if you do not stumble against the fact that at Lewis (x)(y)(x = y > N(x = y) is false, (Lewis pro contingent identity, see above) you can also determine that a thing always only has one GS per possible world (poss.w.). >Counterpart Theory. Stalnaker/Schwarz: that does not work with qualitative counterpart relation as it is always possible that several things - e.g. in a fully symmetrical world - are exactly equally similar to a third thing in another poss.w..
LewisVsStalnaker: Vs non-qualitative c.p.r.: all truths including the modal truths are to be based on what kind of things exist (in act.wrld. and poss.w.) and which (qualitative) properties they have (> "Mosaic": >Humean World).


1. Robert C. Stalnaker [1968]: “A Theory of Conditionals”. In Nicholas Rescher (Hg.), Studies
in Logical Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112
2. Robert C. Stalnaker [1981]: “Indexical Belief”. Synthese, 49.
3. Robert C. Stalnaker [1987a]: “Counterparts and Identity”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 11: 121–140.

Stalnaker I
R. Stalnaker
Ways a World may be Oxford New York 2003

Big I
J. Bigelow, R. Pargetter
Science and Necessity Cambridge 1990

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Lewis I (b)
David K. Lewis
Psychophysical and Theoretical Identifications, in: Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1972)
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis I (c)
David K. Lewis
Mad Pain and Martian Pain, Readings in Philosophy of Psychology, Vol. 1, Ned Block (ed.) Harvard University Press, 1980
In
Die Identität von Körper und Geist, Frankfurt/M. 1989

Lewis II
David K. Lewis
"Languages and Language", in: K. Gunderson (Ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. VII, Language, Mind, and Knowledge, Minneapolis 1975, pp. 3-35
In
Handlung, Kommunikation, Bedeutung, Georg Meggle Frankfurt/M. 1979

Lewis IV
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd I New York Oxford 1983

Lewis V
David K. Lewis
Philosophical Papers Bd II New York Oxford 1986

Lewis VI
David K. Lewis
Convention. A Philosophical Study, Cambridge/MA 1969
German Edition:
Konventionen Berlin 1975

LewisCl
Clarence Irving Lewis
Collected Papers of Clarence Irving Lewis Stanford 1970

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991

Schw I
W. Schwarz
David Lewis Bielefeld 2005
Reductionism Lewis Vs Reductionism IV 76
Def Person State/p.s./State/Lewis: is a physical object, just like the person! (If persons had ghostly parts, their conditions would also have some). The state does many of the things a person does: it walks, talks, thinks, has a belief and desires, size and spatial location. The only difference: the state begins and ends abruptly. So it can't do everything a person does, namely things that take more time.
1. it is possible that a person state exists
2. it is possible that two person states follow each other directly, but do not overlap. The properties and location of the second can be exactly the same as those of the first.
IV 77
Patchwork principle of possibility: if it is possible for X to occur intrinsically in a space-time region and Y in the same way, then it is also possible for X and Y to occur in two separate but subsequent regions. There are no necessary exclusions. Everything can follow everything. 3. there may be a possible world that is exactly like ours in terms of distribution of intrinsic local qualities in time and space. ((s) > Humean Supervenience; > Humean World).
4. such a possible world could be exactly like ours in terms of causal relations, for causality is determined by nothing but the distribution of local qualities. (But maybe this is too strong).
5. such a world of states would be just like our simpliciter. There are no properties of our real world, except those supervening on the distribution of local qualities.
6. then our actual world is a world of states. In particular, there are person states.
7. but persons also exist and persons are (mostly) not person states. They take too long! Nevertheless, persons and person states, such as tables and table legs, are not present twice in regions.
That can only be because they are indistinguishable! They are partly identical.
Person states are parts of persons.
LewisVsReductionism: my definition of person as maximum R correlated aggregates of person states is no reduction! This saves me from circularity when I say that these in turn consist of even shorter ones.
Part/Lewis: by this I simply mean a subdivision, not a well-defined unit that could occur in a causal explanation.

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

LewisCl I
Clarence Irving Lewis
Mind and the World Order: Outline of a Theory of Knowledge (Dover Books on Western Philosophy) 1991
Stalnaker, R. Lewis Vs Stalnaker, R. Read III 101/102
Stalnaker equates the probability of the conditional clauses with the conditional probability. LewisVsStalnaker: there is no statement whose probability is measured by the conditional probability! (+ III 102)
According to Lewis, based on Stalnaker's assumption, the odds of drawing cards are independent. But this is obviously wrong (as opposed to throwing dice). Thus, the probability of the conditional clause cannot be measured by the conditional probability.
III 108
Example from Lewis If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet would be Italian.
and
If Bizet and Verdi were compatriots, Bizet wouldn't be Italian.
Stalnaker: one or the other must be true.
Lewis: both are wrong. (Because only subjunctive conditional sentences are not truth functional). The indicative pieces would be entirely acceptable to those who do not know their nationality.

Lewis IV 149
Action/Rationality/Stalnaker: Propositions are the suitable objects of settings here. LewisVsStalnaker: it turns out that he actually needs a theory of attitudes de se.
Stalnaker: the rationally acting is someone who accepts various possible rational futures. The function of the wish is simple to subdivide these different event progressions into the desired and the rejected ones.
Or to provide an order or measure of alternative possibilities in terms of desirability.
Belief/Stalnaker: its function is simple to determine which the relevant alternative situations may be, or to arrange them in terms of their probability under different conditions.
Objects of attitude/Objects of belief/Stalnaker: are identical if and only if they are functionally equivalent, and they are only if they do not differ in any alternative possible situation.
Lewis: if these alternative situations are always alternative possible worlds, as Stalnaker assumes, then this is indeed an argument for propositions. ((s) Differentiation Situation/Possible world).
Situation/Possible world/Possibility/LewisVsStalnaker: I think there can also be alternatives within a single possible world!
For example, Lingens now knows almost enough to identify himself. He's reduced his options to two: a) he's on the 6th floor of the Stanford Library, then he'll have to go downstairs, or
b) he is in the basement of the Widener College library and must go upstairs.
The books tell him that there is exactly one person with memory loss in each of these places. And he found out that he must be one of them. His consideration provides 8 possibilities:
The eight cases are spread over only four types of worlds! For example, 1 and 3 do not belong to different worlds but are 3000 miles away in the same world.
In order to distinguish these you need qualities again, ((s) the propositions apply equally to both memory artists.)
V 145
Conditionals/Probability/Stalnaker: (1968)(1) Notation: ">" (pointed, not horseshoe!) Def Stalnaker Conditional: a conditional A > C is true if and only if the least possible change that makes A true, also makes C true. (Revision).
Stalnaker: assumes that P(A > C) and P(C I A) are adjusted if A is positive.
The sentences, which are true however under Stalnaker's conditions, are then exactly those that have positive probabilities under his hypothesis about probabilities of conditionals.
LewisVsStalnaker: this is probably true mostly, but not in certain modal contexts, where different interpretations of a language evaluate the same sentences differently.
V 148
Conditional/Stalnaker: to decide whether to believe a conditional: 1. add the antecedent to your set of beliefs,
2. make the necessary corrections for the consistency
3. decide if the consequence is true.
Lewis: that's right for a Stalnaker conditional if the fake revision is done by mapping.
V 148/149
LewisVsStalnaker: the passage suggests that one should pretend the kind of revision that would take place if the antecedens were actually added to the belief attitudes. But that is wrong: then conditionalisation was needed.
Schwarz I 60
Counterpart/c.p./counterpart theory/c.p.th./counterpart relation/c.p.r./StalnakerVsLewis: if you allow almost arbitrary relations as counterpart relations anyway, you could not use qualitative relations. (Stalnaker 1987a)(2): then you can reconcile counterpart with Haecceitism: if you come across the fact that Lewis (x)(y)(x = y > N(x = y) is wrong, (Lewis pro contingent identity, see above) you can also determine that a thing always has only one counter part per world. Stalnaker/Schwarz: this is not possible with qualitative counterpart relations, since it is always conceivable that several things - for example in a completely symmetrical world - are exactly the same as a third thing in another possible world.
LewisVsStalnaker: VsNon qualitative counter part relation: all truths including modal truths should be based on what things exist (in the real world and possible worlds) and what (qualitative) properties they have (>"mosaic": >Humean World).
Schwarz I 62
Mathematics/Truthmaking/Fact/Lewis/Schwarz: as with possible worlds, there is no real information: for example, that 34 is the root of 1156, tells us nothing about the world. ((s) That it applies in every possible world. Rules are not truthmakers). Schwarz: For example, that there is no one who shaves those who do not shave themselves is analogously no information about the world. ((s) So not that the world is qualitatively structured).
Schwarz: maybe we'll learn more about sentences here. But it is a contingent truth (!) that sentences like "there is someone who shaves those who do not shave themselves" are inconsistent.
Solution/Schwarz: the sentence could have meant something else and thus be consistent.
Schwarz I 63
Seemingly analytical truth/Lewis/Schwarz: e.g. what do we learn when we learn that ophthalmologists are eye specialists? We already knew that ophthalmologists are ophthalmologists. We have experienced a contingent semantic fact. Modal logic/Modality/Modal knowledge/Stalnaker/Schwarz: Thesis: Modal knowledge could always be understood as semantic knowledge. For example, when we ask if cats are necessary animals, we ask how the terms "cat" and "animal" are to be used. (Stalnaker 1991(3),1996(4), Lewis 1986e(5):36).
Knowledge/SchwarzVsStalnaker: that's not enough: to acquire contingent information, you always have to examine the world. (Contingent/Schwarz: empirical, non-semantic knowledge).
Modal Truth/Schwarz: the joke about logical, mathematical and modal truths is that they can be known without contact with the world. Here we do not acquire any information. ((s) >making true: no empirical fact "in the world" makes that 2+2 = 4; Cf. >Nonfactualism; >Truthmakers).
Schwarz I 207
"Secondary truth conditions"/truth conditions/tr.cond./semantic value/Lewis/Schwarz: contributing to the confusion is that the simple (see above, context-dependent, ((s) "indexical") and variable functions of worlds on truth values are often not only called "semantic values" but also as truth conditions. Important: these truth conditions (tr.cond.) must be distinguished from the normal truth conditions.
Lewis: use truth conditions like this. 1986e(5),42 48: for primary, 1969(6), Chapter V: for secondary).
Def Primary truth conditions/Schwarz: the conditions under which the sentence should be pronounced according to the conventions of the respective language community.
Truth Conditions/Lewis/Schwarz: are the link between language use and formal semantics, their purpose is the purpose of grammar.
Note:
Def Diagonalization/Stalnaker/Lewis/Schwarz: the primary truth conditions are obtained by diagonalization, i.e. by using world parameters for the world of the respective situation (correspondingly as time parameter the point of time of the situation etc.).
Def "diagonal proposition"/Terminology/Lewis: (according to Stalnaker, 1978(7)): primary truth conditions
Def horizontal proposition/Lewis: secondary truth condition (1980a(8),38, 1994b(9),296f).
Newer terminology:
Def A-Intension/Primary Intension/1-Intension/Terminology/Schwarz: for primary truth conditions
Def C-Intension/Secondary Intension/2-Intension/Terminology/Schwarz: for secondary truth conditions
Def A-Proposition/1-Proposition/C-Proposition/2-Propsition/Terminology/Schwarz: correspondingly. (Jackson 1998a(10),2004(11), Lewis 2002b(12),Chalmers 1996b(13), 56,65)
Def meaning1/Terminology/Lewis/Schwarz: (1975(14),173): secondary truth conditions.
Def meaning2/Lewis/Schwarz: complex function of situations and worlds on truth values, "two-dimensional intention".
Schwarz: Problem: this means very different things:
Primary truth conditions/LewisVsStalnaker: in Lewis not determined by meta-linguistic diagonalization like Stalnaker's diagonal proposition. Not even about a priori implication as with Chalmer's primary propositions.
Schwarz I 227
A posteriori necessity/Metaphysics/Lewis/Schwarz: normal cases are not cases of strong necessity. One can find out for example that Blair is premier or e.g. evening star = morning star. LewisVsInwagen/LewisVsStalnaker: there are no other cases (which cannot be empirically determined).
LewisVs Strong Need: has no place in its modal logic. LewisVs telescope theory: possible worlds are not like distant planets where you can find out which ones exist.


1. Robert C. Stalnaker [1968]: “A Theory of Conditionals”. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Studies
in Logical Theory, Oxford: Blackwell, 98–112
2.Robert C. Stalnaker [1987a]: “Counterparts and Identity”. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 11: 121–140. In [Stalnaker 2003]
3. Robert C. Stalnaker [1991]: “The Problem of Logical Omniscience I”. Synthese, 89. In [Stalnaker 1999a]
4. Robert C. Stalnaker — [1996]: “On What Possible Worlds Could Not Be”. In Adam Morton und Stephen P.
Stich (Hg.) Benacerraf and his Critics, Cambridge (Mass.): Blackwell. In [Stalnaker 2003]
5. David Lewis [1986e]: On the Plurality of Worlds. Malden (Mass.): Blackwell
6. David Lewis[1969a]: Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University
Press
7. Robert C. Stalnaker [1978]: “Assertion”. In P. Cole (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9, New York: Academic Press, 315–332, und in [Stalnaker 1999a]
8. David Lewis [1980a]: “Index, Context, and Content”. In S. Kanger und S. ¨Ohmann (ed.), Philosophy
and Grammar, Dordrecht: Reidel, und in [Lewis 1998a]
9. David Lewis [1994b]: “Reduction of Mind”. In Samuel Guttenplan (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy
of Mind, Oxford: Blackwell, 412–431, und in [Lewis 1999a]
10. Frank Jackson [1998a]: From Metaphysics to Ethics: A Defence of Conceptual Analysis. Oxford: Clarendon Press
11. Frank Jackson [2004]: “Why We Need A-Intensions”. Philosophical Studies, 118: 257–277
12. David Lewis [2002b]: “Tharp’s Third Theorem”. Analysis, 62: 95–97
13. David Chalmers [1996b]: The Conscious Mind. New York: Oxford University Press
14. David Lewis [1975]: “Languages and Language”. In [Gunderson 1975], 3–35. And in [Lewis 1983d]

Lewis I
David K. Lewis
Die Identität von Körper und Geist Frankfurt 1989

Re III
St. Read
Thinking About Logic: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Logic. 1995 Oxford University Press
German Edition:
Philosophie der Logik Hamburg 1997

Schw I
W. Schwarz
David Lewis Bielefeld 2005