I got the rough draft of my paper back from Dr. Korcz.
I believed my argument against the existence of possible worlds other than our own was brilliant, but I now see that my argument needs quite a bit of refinement.
This is going to require a lot of thought. But I'm not giving up; this do I solemnly swear by all I hold dear ...
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!!!!*
I will strike, I will jab. I will flay about with razor logic until all possibilities are exhausted - no superficial subjunctives shall stand! I shall remain sillily triumphant in my own mind!!!!**
If you want to speak up for the existence of possible worlds, now's the time ... before I demonstrate once and for all the awesome power of a determined mind and lay waste to all that is not actual (in the non-indexical sense***)!!!!!!!!!****
*Thanks Arglor for the recent post.
** Unless I become convinced that the antithesis of the case contraindicated by the one I propose is correct, is correct.
*** David lewis maintains that actuality is whatever goes on here - no matter which possible world you happen to be in.
**** Emphatic, aren't I?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
for something to occur in the actuality, it must occur in the present possible world, which would have to be the current possible world in which the statement occured so it seems it would matter what possible world you happen to be in...
I'm not sure i said anything coherent. It is early in the morning. I just had a problem with the definition of actuality not mattering which possible world you occur within, i guess in a matter of speaking it doesn't matter. Actuality can only occur within the possible world in which you exist. so there is only one actuality you should concern yourself and it is labeled Au, Actuality involving you.*
*is this how asteriks work? ;)
Yes, Arglor. I'm not certain but I think we mean to say the same thing. I will clarify and you can decide if my words agree with what you think.
My words may have been a little misleading. When I wrote that "actuality happens here no matter which world you happen to be in", that doesn't mean that anyone can change worlds or jump from world to world. Whatever world you are in, that is the world in which you are stuck. That is the actual world ... for you and all your "worldmates". Worldmates are whatever you share the world with.
Suppose you have a counterpart in another world. Your counterpart exists in the same manner as you do. He is concrete and the things around him are concrete. The world your counterpart lives in is the actual world for him, and our world is a mere possible world for him. We have no way of reaching him and he has no way of reaching us. Our worlds are causally isolated from one another.
At least, that's what David Lewis thinks. That's what he means when he says that "actual" is an indexical term.
David Lewis claims we should believe in the existence of possible worlds on pragmatic grounds. They are useful to talk about. My thesis is that you can posit possible entities, states-of-affairs, and worlds all you want, but we have good reason to disbelieve their existence. Although they are logically possible, the only way we know about them is through our use of counterfactual statements.
Counterfactual statements are wrapped up and intertwined with our notions of causation. The state of affairs implied by the antecedent somehow causes the consequent.
I argue from our understanding of causation that we cannot say anything about what goes on in possible worlds. The argument is too long to put here. If I am correct and we cannot say anything about what goes on in them, then there is little reason to believe they exist, since their usefulness is gone.
Sounds like you could even use Occam's Razor to clarify this... although i'm not sure to the philosophical uses inherent within occam's razor, or if in fact it can be used in arguments.
It just seems like a less complex world would be one where possible states of affairs are simply linguistic constructions.
Post a Comment