Oh, very good. — Ludwig V

Pleased someone notes the drollery! :grin:

a) that the actual world is the one in which we are constructing the possible worlds and the point of view from which we are surveying them and identifying which world we wish to treat as actual — Ludwig V

Yep. Hence the sometime definition of truth simpliciter as "true in w₀"... All of our modal logic is "true in w₀"!

b) that we do not choose that world - we are lumbered with it - even thrown into it. — Ludwig V

Pretty much.

What we don't have here is any inconsistency...

Leastwise, none I can see.


I was thinking about the "books" analog the other day, but can't now recall what it was I thunked. I think something like that is going on in the article, with the tree differing accounts of what possible worlds are; and I think it is somehow off-centre. But I haven't yet worked out quite how.

Part of the problem is that the books analogy and the three accounts picture the world as complete.

What does “water” mean? "Water" means different things to different people. To a scientist, "water" is necessarily H2O. To me, "water" is necessarily wet, in that if not wet it cannot be water. To a linguist, “water” is necessarily a noun. There is no one meaning of “water”, though each meaning is necessary within its own context.
— RussellA
And yet all these people can communicate. How is that possible? There must be common elements to all these different meanings that enable communication across contexts. Those common elements are what we might call ordinary life, which is the common context that links all three people. — Ludwig V

I would disagree with “to the scientist “water” is necessarily H2O” but I am not going to rehash everything I have said up to this point.

But I would like to add further criticism to this idea that water is essentially H2O. Take the following three types of water (and I could name many more)

1. “Sea water”
2. “Purified water”
3. “Purified heavy water”

Sea water >96% H2O unsafe to drink

Purified water >99% H2O safe to drink but long term use may deplete essential minerals

Purified heavy water >99% D2O ok to drink in very small quantities but very hazardous in larger amounts

All use the term “water” but there is no common essence between them.

See my post

This does not show any inconsistency with the article, nor any inconsistency in treating actual as an indexical.

Can you complete your argument? — Banno

I already did, by pointing to, and discussing, the supplementary article Classical Possibilism and Lewisian Possibilism. It's pretty explicit when it says: :"Unfortunately, things often get a bit murky in discussions of Lewis because, as noted in thesis 5, he does not use the word “actual” to indicate the mode of being that we enjoy (and that, according to the classical possibilist, some things do not) but, rather, to indicate this world and its inhabitants. "

Read the whole of my post, I see no reason to repeat it.

, that quote doesn't seem to do what you think it does.

But, fine, carry on.

Please explain what you think I got wrong.

Well, I do't see an argument that has as it's comnclusion:

The notion that "actual" is indexical is not consistent with the terminology in the SEP article, The Possibilism-Actualism Debate: — Relativist

So we agree that for Possibilists reality includes possibilia, things that could exist but do not actually exist, that there’s a broader realm beyond the concrete world. And that Actualists suppose only what actually exists counts as real. There’s no domain of merely possible entities. And that Lewis treates "actual" as indexical. To show inconsistency, one would have to demonstrate that the SEP article’s definitions cannot accommodate an indexical sense of “actual”, or that indexical “actual” violates SEP’s logic. I don't see that here.

But as noted, I'm more interested in the main article here than in this side issue. Once we have an agreed view on what the possibilities are for possible worlds, then we might better treat the possible and the actual.

Small steps.

Lewis does believe that all possible worlds are actual worlds, but that's not a common view. Lots of philosophers disagree about that, but still use possible world semantics to discuss counterfactuals. Whether or not those counterfactual worlds are possible is debatable - but "possible" can apply to past, present, and future. — Relativist

Yes, I thought that's what we were talking about, Lewis' interpretation where all possible worlds are actual.

In everyday discourse it's ambiguous, but it appears to me that among philosophers, there's no ambiguity about what it means. There are controversies, but not about the basic definition. — Relativist

Not at all, like all the terms of modal logic, there is a big difference between ontological meaning and modal logic meaning. That is the ongoing discussion I've had with Banno over the meaniong of "the actual world".

What this shows is that Meta's way of talking is incompatible with the formal account. — Banno

Obviously.

He's not offering an alternative theory. — Banno

I offered an alternative theory. It involves a real ontology of time, and a separation between ontological possibility, statements of epistemological possibility, and counterfactual statements which are not possibilities at all, being statement so things which are actually impossible. That's three distinct categories.

For the rest of us, some proposal is contingent if and only if it is true in some, but not all, possible worlds. — Banno

Relaitivist and I were talking about "contingent things", not "contingent proposals". @Relativist, see what I mean about the ambiguity?

It is as if you were arguing that "over there" is meaningless, because it can be made to refer to any place at all. — Banno

You're ignoring the other half of the conditions. The meaninglessness was dependent on referring to everything as actual, and also without a definition for "actual". That's the situation Relativist and I were discussing concerning Lewis' interpretation of possible worlds. Every possible world is an actual world, and Relativist added that the world we perceive is an actual world, therefore everything is "actual", and I said that if everything is actual, then without a definition, "actual" is meaningless.

This shows very clearly and precisely, in a nutshell, the significant and substantial problem with your understanding of possible world semantics. In standard modal logic, the term “actual world” is an indexical label applied to one world in the model—it does not make any ontological claim about that world being the only real or “ontologically actual” world. It is a convenient reference point for evaluating modal statements, just as “here” or “now” is in ordinary language. — Banno

Banno, did you not read the SEP on truth conditions? The actual world of the modal model must "in fact" be the actual world. This means it must be the ontological actual world. This will be the third or fourth time I've produced this quote. Are you blind, or just unable to understand English?

(ii) its designated “actual world” is in fact the actual world, — SEP

How do you interpret "is in fact the actual world", in any way other than 'is the ontologically actual world'? That is an ontological statement. It does not state as the truth condition that the designated actual world must be the designated actual world, it states that the designated actual world "is in fact the actual world". Do you see that, and understand what it means? That is why Lewis proceeds to propose that each possible world is a concrete world, just like the one we designate as "the actual world", because we know "the actual world" ontologically as a concrete world, and the truth condition requires that the actual world in the modal model must "in fact", be the actual world. Therefore he concludes that all the possible worlds must be concrete worlds, just like the one we know.

You confusion comes from thinking that the world given the title w₀ in a modal interpretation must be our world - the confusion of the modal and the metaphysical. Think I've mentioned that before. — Banno

According to the SEP, the modal "actual world", must in fact, be the actual world. If you maintain that there is another "actual world", what you call the "metaphysically actual world", then to accept the modalism, you must reject the truth of the metaphysically actual world. It must be an illusion, because the modal actual world is "in fact", the actual world, and the metaphysical world is different, as you assert, so the metaphysical "actual world" must be fictional.

Yes, cheers - understood. I find it easier to answer these odd little objections than to move on with the harder stuff of the article, so I find myself somewhat distracted. There's a chance that the explanations I'm giving will help folk see the direction the article is taking. It's already very clear that Meta - for whom you started this thread - is for whatever reason incapable of following the discussion. But others may be coming along. — Banno

You think that this is the easier stuff, but you seem completely incapable of understanding it. Look at the meaning of "is in fact the actual world", for example. Why ignore the "is in fact" part, as it is a critical truth condition? Accept what the article says, and get on with the Idealism of modal logic. Instead, you keep insisting that there is another "actual world", the metaphysically actual world. But the "metaphysically actual world" is ruled out, as a fiction, when it is stipulated that the modal actual world is "in fact" the actual world. So, the easy part puts us into the idealist framework. Now, having gotten beyond the easy part, we must now proceed within that idealist framework, otherwise our interpretations are bound to be badly mistaken.

To show inconsistency, one would have to demonstrate that the SEP article’s definitions cannot accommodate an indexical sense of “actual”, or that indexical “actual” violates SEP’s logic. I don't see that here. — Banno

I agree it doesn't violate the logic.

ok.

I see what you mean. Thanks for explaining.

I offered an alternative theory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, no. What you have offered, a set of assertions, isn’t a theory on a par with possible-worlds semantics. It doesn't provide a formal semantics. Possible-worlds semantics gives precise truth-conditions for modal claims, compositional rules for complex sentences, and a mathematically explicit structure (models, accessibility relations, evaluation clauses). Your proposal is a taxonomic distinction, a mere set of metaphysical labels separating ontology, epistemology, and counterfactual talk, without rules that determine when modal statements are true or false, or how they interact logically. It replaces a working semantic framework with intuitive metaphysical assertions, so it cannot do the same explanatory or inferential work.

The rest is layered confusion on your part.