Peter van Inwagen - What are Possible Worlds? (Part 2)

[@dvaccaro96]

I love these plebs comments saying that philosophy is just blubbering: the internet gives you access to things you just don't understand and you don't deserve it :)

[@Nephelokokkygia1215]

In this episode contemporary philosophy necessarily gets us Further from Truth

[@stevecoley8365]

Joy, beauty and harmony (heaven) is the exact opposite of misery, ugliness and conflict (hell).

[@ismireghal68]

Is there anything gained by assuming possible world not connected to ours by space/time at all?

[@Emc412]

It reduces modal talk (i.e possible, necessary, could have happened, is essential, so on so forth) to non modal terms. So now when we say that it is necessary that x, it means that in every world x. It means we are not left with any modal primitives (or at least so is argued) and so a lot of people really like it. If you hold that possible worlds are (like most people) abstract things like sets of sentences (think of a book that describes an entire universe) then you need to hold that such sets of sentences are consistent (or something like that). However, consistency is a modal term, so now we are still left with something unanalysed. Which means baggage and we don't like baggage. If you assume that possible worlds are concrete (really exist like ours) as Lewis does, then you need a way to individuate between them, and Lewis does that by completing isolating them spatiotemporally. That enables them to be individuated.

[@peterharkness2211]

he answers that question in the video, or didn't you look???!!!

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

How does language fit into possible worlds?

[@Selvakumar-cd5gr]

May be possible for that possible.

[@SeanAnthony-j7f]

Semantics and modality

[@jeanettesdaughter]

I dwell in possibility a surer house than prose, more numerous for windows, etc. I’d rather simply read some ED and other poets, and writers. Everything conceivable is there! Ways things could be. We sure need alternatives!

[@firstnamesurname6550]

Again, '... To Believe is not required ...'

[@claudetaillefer1332]

Peter van Inwagen is talking nonsense. Modal logic is typically understood as a theory of "logical consequence" between sentences (statements) involving possibility or necessity (modal operators), a maximally consistent set of such sentences. Modal realism, as advocated by some philosophers (e.g. David Lewis), is a metaphysical doctrine and not a theory of logical consequence between modal sentences. To quote Quine, this is a dubious business!

[@braininahat]

Peter van Inwagen is a good philosopher, a great writer, but this little talk is far from informative. I'm still skeptical about the uses of possible worlds semantics. I think philosophers have taken it too far -- especially David Lewis -- almost to the point where they're looking for ontological objects that correspond to their linguistic expressions, or some deep structure, sort of like Wittgenstein did in the Tractatus. Language works whether or not it's precise, vague, or nonsense. It's not the job of the philosopher to explain how language or meaning must "really" work. If we aren't cognizant of anything deep in using such expressions, then it's the job of the philosopher to explain how language works without such awareness. Philosophers should be archaeologists, not cosmologists, when it comes to language. While philosophy has rather embarrassing limitations -- philosophers still can't refute idealism, solipsism, or David Lewis's ridiculous claims -- it's still a very practical skill. I say "skill" because that's what it primarily is. And as a skill, it requires someone to teach you how to do it properly, lots of corrected practice, and some natural ability for you to be really good at it. I know people have the conceit that other people don't reason better than they do, but that's a lie. I reason better than all of you, frankly, but then I've had training in philosophy. If you had training in playing the piano, building houses, or making violins, I wouldn't walk around thinking I could do those things as well as you. But because philosophy is a different type of skill, people don't see it the same way. In fact, though, my training in philosophy creates a bigger gap in ability between me and you than the gap that would exist if you studied pottery making and I didn't for four years. It's not a pleasant thought to entertain, but then the truth is sometimes not comfortable.

[@rhandley1000]

Just trying to understand with my limited understanding. Reading your critique of possible worlds makes me ask if you see value in modality. I like modal logic and the use of possible worlds in this realm (pun intended) of logic. I believe David Lewis said possible worlds were concrete objects with no causality like abstract objects. I could be wrong on that regarding Lewis, but if I am not then I definitely disagree with him. I am with you as a practical skill - it is a skill in thought and underpins all the disciplines. Just curious were you stand on modality...

[@braininahat]

@@rhandley1000 -- As I understand it, possible worlds semantics is offered as an explanation of modal claims. It's an account of what is meant by modal claim X, which is an ordinary language claim. The problem is that sometimes our ordinary language claims leave us feeling that we don't quite know what we ourselves are saying, or are committed to, in saying them, so we look for an explanation, a deep theory, to help us get a grip on the "actual" meaning of what we're saying. Now, some people (such as myself) think that, in the case of modal claims, there is no deeper meaning to our words, so any theory offered to explain what we "actually" mean is false. But even if you grant that there is a deeper meaning to our modal claims, there's the question of whether possible worlds semantics is that deeper meaning. Maybe there's a different underlying semantics at work in our modal claims, a semantics we just haven't discovered yet. While I agree that possible worlds semantics does help explain modal claims, I think it might just be a tool to do away with the uneasiness we have with the vagueness of ordinary language at times. Let me give you an analogy. I also think using the metaphor of war is a good way to teach chess to new players, but I don't think chess is at bottom a war. I just think there's a lot in war semantics that helps us understand what's happening in chess. This is how I feel about possible worlds semantics. I think there's a lot in possible worlds semantics that helps us understand what's happening in modal claims, but I don't think that modal claims are at bottom possible worlds claims.

[@rhandley1000]

@@braininahat Yeah, so I agree with you. Often we do not know what we are saying. We say 'its raining cats and dogs outside' during a downpour. Its true and everyone we say it to during the downpour agrees. It is also false - animals are not falling from the sky. So we have a logical inconsistency like a square circle. This is why I find free logic, or figuralism , or neutralism within the realm of antirealism to be very appealing. These branches help affirm the often ridiculousness of language, but also the efficiency. Mind you; I am a layman. I have degrees in business, not philosophy. I am not professional trained like you. I greatly enjoy philosophy, however, and read when I can.

[@martinet1985]

This thread has an extremely high number of words that have no real meaning when put together. In other words, you guys are just blubbering and NOTHING important comes out of it. Stop your internal dialogue! You're wrong.

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@@martinet1985 - actually I disagree with you - I am exploring the possible worlds theory for my literature masters as it has some overlaps with fictionality - I am at heart a realist - I think we live in an actual world - I don't care if we can prove it either - but I have found this conversation between Handley and braininahat very useful. I also happen to think that discussions about the meaning of words is very, very important: words are used all the time with little agreed substance behind them - and these are often the words that cause all of the problems in the world. A few examples: spirituality, god, good, evil, junk food, empty calories - see what I mean?

[@kjustkses]

Still so funny when grownups talk about many worlds.

[@gustavgus4545]

You just showed that you have no idea what is being said.

[@kjustkses]

Joey Pipkorn Sure it was not completely relevant to this topic, but similar topics are being discussed in both physics and philosophy circles quite often. As soon as I hear “worlds” I tend to leave the conversation. It is quite useless.

[@gustavgus4545]

@@kjustkses It is actually pretty useful. In philosophy, possible world semantics has greatly helped with our understanding of counter factuas, and that is not a small thing. With the exception of David Lewis (and perhaps a very tiny minority who follow him on this point), nearly all philosophers who talk about "possible worlds" do not believe that there are in fact any worlds than the actual one (the one we find ourselves in) which are concrete or real.

[@KaiseruSoze]

Assume what I say is true... blah blah blah ... it's necessary. How is that not subjective? Jesus!

[@hi12591]

Please read a book

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@@hi12591 - I am here because the Possible Worlds idea is used in Literary Theory at an advanced level - fictional worlds are not the same as possible worlds but you can see how the two interact I suspect? However, I have come across the theists argument for why possible worlds prove god - they don't and the point Martinelli is making is correct. The problem is twofold: we do not know whether a god is possible, and second, even if it is possible, that does not prove that a god does exist. Sorry, but using this theory to prove any god is useless.

[@gustavgus4545]

Yea...none of that was said or implied at all in this video.

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

@@gustavgus4545 - agreed - but theists think that it is!!

[@gustavgus4545]

@@honeychurchgipsy6 Assume that what is true? Possible worlds? Like the multi universe's many physicists and cosmologists believe in? Is that what you mean?

[@AliVeli-gr4fb]

i really dislike philosophy, I haven't seen any philosopher talk straight to point, I haven't seen any philosopher talk sense without blabbering. well in this age of science their stupidity is much more obvious

[@leanalcantara4976]

Not talking straight to the point is stupid? When you read an article on physics, how straight was the argument to the point?

[@markr1461]

Sounds like you are just lazy.

[@heoltelwen3605]

Have you ever considered that you're just too stupid to understand philosophy in the first place? Think about what you said. You basically said "I don't understand philosophy (emphasis on the "I"), so, therefore it's stupid. Just because YOU don't understand something, that doesn't mean the thing YOU don't understand is stupid; maybe YOU are. Can you actually explain what was discussed here sufficiently enough to then offer a genuine criticism of it - rather, than just say it's stupid? Like that somehow proves anything? You sound like one of the many naive atheists that I've encountered who endorse scientism instead of actual science (I'm an atheist too, but I cringe when certain atheists say the kinds of things mentioned in this comment section e.g., something that seems subjective is automatically bad and that science can explain every single thing). If you're not, well, then you obviously still don't understand philosophy (or science for that matter) to know what you're talking about. You do know that not only did science come from philosophy, but that it continues to be molded and influenced by philosophy, right? The scientific method itself is a philosophical concept developed by natural philosophers at a time where the distinction between philosophers and scientists was still yet to be made. Thales was not only the first philosopher but also the first scientist. Whatever beliefs you have are most likely those that a philosopher developed, so maybe you should do some research first before you start trying to criticize something you don't even understand in the first place.

[@qqqmyes4509]

Why are you watching this video? Inwagen is just describing a mental tool philosophers use, which then applies to arguments. There are many arguments that are straight to the point. Maybe you should read more than watch, idk?

[@honeychurchgipsy6]

Ali Veli - we wouldn't have science without philosophy - in fact it was called natural philosophy and even today the philosophy of science is important to our understanding of science. You may have heard of Carl Popper and the claim that all scientific claims must be falsifiable? Well, Popper was a philosopher. There's a brilliant book for the non philosopher/non scientist (such as myself) that I read - What is this thing called science? - can't remember who wrote it - it might make you think more clearly on this subject.