Alvin Plantinga - What are Possible Worlds?

[@Archimedes_1]

"I" could be shorter in a possible world, but in what sense is that other person still "me"? How many different properties would need to change before we stop calling that possible person a version of "me"?

[@ethancarlin3345]

He's likely to say the soul

[@ameralbadry6825]

Possible worlds could be the subjects of our dreams 🤓

[@antoniomoyal]

Happy to hear Plantinga citing Catholic St. Thomas Aquinas.

[@triggerfish999]

For philosophy students possible worlds (and modal logic) are part of the standard curriculum and nothing new. This guy hasn't 'come up' with the idea, as suggested at the beginning. Getting your head around it takes some doing…but it is bog standard philosophical fare. Remember..things could have been other than they are. Also remember..this is part of the philosophy of language and to that extent it's just sophisticated word games. You still have to pay your bills and you're still going to die one day. And finally, you and I *might have* existed in a possible world, though in fact we exist (there is no contingency) in this possible world.

[@votingcitizen]

How does it follow "if a man is a bachelor, he necessarily will never get married"? same with the standing. you do not need "possible worlds" to explain how states can change over time - i.e. a bachelor can marry and a standing person can sit. Necessity does not require permanence. Necessary for a given state does not require necessary forever, for always and for every where. No "possible world" needed. Unless the idea of a "world" is a static point example of the current state of things. In that case, then yes, there are new "possible worlds" every instant in time.

[@Rittley]

I got confused there too. He must mean being a bachelor in essence as a person for whom being a bachelor turns out to be so essential that he could not be married at all in any other world under any circumstances. If so I guess this view might be a neat way of seeking out essential properties...However it seems to assume essentialism...

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"How does it follow "if a man is a bachelor, he necessarily will never get married"?"* ... The moment he gets married he would no longer be considered a "bachelor," so all bachelors can never be married by definition. It's a semantic thing, and I'm not a fan of semantics.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

The guest speaker is using the word 'possible world' instead of 'possible situations'. This discussion has no substance.

[@Sergei_Gusakov]

Besides, our notion of necessity comes from our experiences in THIS world, and this only. The notion is derived from the world, not vice versa. We don't know if other worlds are even possible, let alone if their definition of necessity has to be the same as in this one or be at all. So what is it all about? Unless we are talking beliefs, but then no real point in talking.

[@shephusted2714]

the thing is people could have many possible worlds if they just relax and let their mind figure out the answers

[@Maxwell-mv9rx]

He shows proposition about possible worlds. However It is tautology. Absolutetly. Means nothing. He shows possible worlds It is for nothing.

[@gettaasteroid4650]

unmarried bachelors is not true in form but in terms and conditions, it's not a tautology. the possible worlds exist because symmetry, and symmetry is not everything, there's the weak force for example. How are we supposed to find Aliens with this Alvin?

[@kentzepick4169]

My guess is that he’s smarter than you. So I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.

[@TheTroofSayer]

In order to take conjectures regarding possible worlds seriously, we need to work from an axiomatic framework of fundamental assumptions, one that factors in agency, the mind-body problem, embodied cognition & meaning. This is not the route that Plantinga is taking. What's it like to be a bat, a bird, a dog, a bee, a fish? Plantinga's approach cannot yield answers. There's a lot to unpack here. In the interests of brevity, I conclude that Alvin Plantinga's thesis, which assumes an anthropocentric "real" reality, is an expression of the Occident's tension between because-God Creationism and not-God Physicalism. Missing from his perspective is the agency theory (cellular, cultural) and embodied cognition that can otherwise account for *all* forms of consciousness (not just human)... for ultimately, other creatures, with different phenomenological experiences, also have their own possible worlds to survive in. I see this as a crucial omission.

[@kimsahl8555]

Possible world = the potential world.

[@evaadam3635]

A Loving GOD does not need to create another World aside from our Physical Universe... He may just add another Galaxy if necessary....

[@S3RAVA3LM]

And even: the actual world was once a potential world, too.

[@kimsahl8555]

@@S3RAVA3LM Yes, but then about before the potential world ............?????

[@MrSimonsmoke]

Standing in between two parallel mirrors and you can see into the infinite far, you waved, but each and every person in the mirror start doing different things. Are you the only one that’s real Or all the images are real too?

[@willie5578]

If the infinite is truth and all was possible there would necessarily have to be a reality that would destroy all the others and all would not be But there would also have to be a world resistant to this destroying universe and remain to be

[@oleksandrholubenko5005]

Lots of confusion in the comments section. It is part of a standard undergraduate course in philosophical logic. Nothing new. After David Lewis and Saul Kripke, this "logical instrument" became quite popular among professional philosophers. This philosophical "technique" has nothing to do with trivial fantasy, nor with the Multiverse and Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics.

[@sujok-acupuncture9246]

Saturday hangovers 😅

[@MarkPatmos]

Maybe God's mind is aware of all possiblilites as well as the actual one. He is after all meant to be omniscient.

[@MarkPatmos]

Our entire reality could just be the creation of God's mind.

[@realitycheck1231]

IMO, our entire world is a creation in our own separate conscious minds. The conscious part of our mind wants to be separate from the whole or separate from Knowledge. Knowledge does not equal consciousness. Knowledge is in a category separate from perceptive consciousness. God is omniscient because God is all -knowing of a timeless reality. When the mind becomes whole, then I suppose that's when it's closer to the state of knowledge. This involves on inward process. ACIM Circle of Atonement knowledge knowledge Root meaning: The condition of knowing with certainty what something is. Conventional: Being aware of or possessing information and concepts. ACIM: The heavenly condition of knowing reality through direct and total union with it, unmediated by physical senses or mental interpretation. Knowledge and perception are mutually exclusive, for perception involves a separation between subject and object, knower and known. This makes certainty impossible. Yet knowledge is completely certain and without question. Thus it does not change and hence it is timeless. It is total, having no degrees. In it each part is the whole. It is completely non-specific, abstract. It contains no opposites, no contrast and no comparisons. It cannot be learned, for learning applies only to perception, where information enters from the outside. It can only be remembered. This happens when we reach the state of true perception, which contains no opposition to knowledge. The goal of the Course is readiness for knowledge, not knowledge itself.........

[@realitycheck1231]

knowledge Root meaning: The condition of knowing with certainty what something is. Conventional: Being aware of or possessing information and concepts. ACIM: The heavenly condition of knowing reality through direct and total union with it, unmediated by physical senses or mental interpretation. Knowledge and perception are mutually exclusive, for perception involves a separation between subject and object, knower and known. This makes certainty impossible. Yet knowledge is completely certain and without question. Thus it does not change and hence it is timeless. It is total, having no degrees. In it each part is the whole. It is completely non-specific, abstract. It contains no opposites, no contrast and no comparisons. It cannot be learned, for learning applies only to perception, where information enters from the outside. It can only be remembered. This happens when we reach the state of true perception, which contains no opposition to knowledge. The goal of the Course is readiness for knowledge, not knowledge itself

[@andymelendez9757]

I think utility is subjective and that if we don’t exercise our minds outside the realm of normalcy we lose the ability to create thru hypothetical origination and conceptual exercise. Therefore even the most bitter and boring episodes can create new pathways for us to explore. Some will disagree but that’s OK.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

Does the Primordial Cause i.e. the Cause of all causes, aka God, only a possibility in certain worlds? ^ such a stupid question.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

Without any asides to theism, *"Possible Worlds"* would be any other type of universe that is not exactly like this universe, but still abides by *logical conceivability.* Logical conceivability would be the only requirement because any world that is not logically conceivable _cannot exist._ Whereas a _"different, yet possible"_ version of this universe would be one that forms in the same way that this one did, yet maybe resulted in different celestial configurations and different lifeforms. However, the overall process for the formation of a universe would necessarily be the same. No "fully equipped" universes will magically pop up nor will any universes that don't abide by logic. After all, there are a _wide variety_ of tasty omelets out there, ... but they all have to start with an egg!

[@mickeybrumfield764]

There would seem to be a whole of contingency in most any human life.

[@ansleyrubarb8672]

...You have just proved...Multiverse...in which by our exercising free will, the possibilities are endless, respectfully, ordinarychuck hotmail... capture brevis... you tube...Blessings...

[@PMKehoe]

Math instantiated into fanciful theories? :)

[@keithwalmsley1830]

This has shades of Multiverses and any possible world existing in some other Universe, I've always thought this is more wishful thinking than anything else, I mean why am I stuck in this shitty life and world? 😭🤣

[@prestonmack320]

Huuuuuuuuu🙃

[@andreasplosky8516]

Smurf world is a possible world. Therefore, Smurfs exist.

[@CesarClouds]

Haha, I like this.

[@NightBazaar]

There are also possible worlds and universes where stars are glitter, Disney logos are galaxies, and planets are chocolate Mickey Mouse figurines.

[@andreasplosky8516]

@@NightBazaar Therefore, they must definitely be real and true.

[@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC]

*"Smurf world is a possible world. Therefore, Smurfs exist."* ... "Logically possibility" only means that the odds for the existence of something that is logically possible cannot be set to zero. It doesn't mean that it *must* exist. Logically impossible things are the only things for which the possibility for their existence is necessarily set to zero.

[@Lillianachimp]

Wrong

[@NicholasWilliams-uk9xu]

How is he going to derive these worlds if he doesn't understand foundations of energy extent and deviations over time over thermodynamic action space? He starts with god, instead of just accounting for (moving stuff that exist), sure you can dream these worlds, but can you define them in thermodynamic space? I can code massive 30,000 line scripts defining a systems transformation mechanics for video game, but that is not representative of possible realities, because that structure implies things it doesn't have, while thermodynamic space is defined by the sum of inverse intersecting momentum undergoing bisector reflection within thermodynamic space (linear motion and angular motion). Therefore, try again.

[@ComommonlyCensored]

I used to be an avid follower of this channel. After all the years I have come to realize there is only a few interviews that are worth listening to. Most of it is proof of why people hate academics.

[@S3RAVA3LM]

CTT core intention, i think, is to invoke people, to start asking questions, and to have people of diverse beliefs and positions to come together. Therefore, this channel is democratic: comparing a worthy and wise man to a person unlearned of a poor fund of knowledge. Although no genuine inquiry is for entertainment, it's in this that attracts people, and maybe that which is latent within such people it may ignite.

[@ComommonlyCensored]

@@S3RAVA3LM what a pedantic and worthless blathering. you would fit right in!

[@Corpusless]

Bachelors cannot get married? That's absurd. I don't have time to listen to see if somewhere down the line he will make sense.

[@LuuLuong-bn8iy]

wasted the lifetime searching for self stupidotaholic 😅😂😂😂

[@georgegrubbs2966]

@@CorpuslessBachelors cannot be married.