You stipulate that you are talking about the actual world, and this means that the world you are talking about is a possible world, it is stipulated. By your own words, the actual world is "not stipulated". — Metaphysician Undercover

We are in the actual world. Metaphysics.

We might stipulate that we want to talk about the actual world, and not some other possibel world. Semantics.

You are mixing the two.


If you stipulate that the world which Branson's wife did not die, is the actual world, you would be mistaken.

We are in the actual world. Metaphysics. — Banno

OK, let's get this straight. I hope you are not trying to confuse me.

We are in the actual world.
Possible worlds are stipulated though.
The world we are in is not a stipulated world
Therefore the actual world is not a possible world.

Agree?

The world we are in is not a stipulated world — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a metaphysical point. The other assumptions are semantic.

Speaking semantically, the actual world can be stipulated. Which is just to say we can talk about the actual world as one of the possible words.

We are in the actual world. — Banno

What proof do you have of such that a person in a stipulated or even flat-out simulated world wouldn't be able to "show" or otherwise "point to" as well, though? This is the root of the argument that words and misplacement of words ultimately fail to address. :chin:

Not sure I understand.

By definition, the actual world is the one we are in. Is that what you are asking?

Or are you asking for proof that you are in the actual world? What could that look like?

This is a metaphysical point. — Banno

A very important metaphysical point, I might add. Failure to recognize this might lead one to think that the actual world is one of the possible worlds. And one might think that what is actually known is also possibly known. But a good metaphysician will recognize the category division, and the danger of contradiction if we allow that the actual is also possible.

Speaking semantically, the actual world can be stipulated. Which is just to say we can talk about the actual world as one of the possible words. — Banno

Sure, but this is problematic due to the possibility of mistake. If we stipulate that a specific possible world represents the actual world, then we take that special status assigned to "the actual world", for granted, even though it might not be a correct representation. Therefore, the title "the actual world" requires more than simple stipulation, it requires justification.

"things, as phenomena, determine space; that is to say, they render it possible that, of all the possible predicates of space (size and relation), certain may belong to reality" (CPR). — SophistiCat

I agree with most of that. I can see that we need to say that the actual is possible - even if that is a bit awkward in some ways. It certainly beats saying that the actual is not possible.
I'm not sure I understand this sentence. But if you mean that things determine space, rather than the other way round, I'm with you.

But Banno seems to be influenced by some sort of common language intuition which makes him think that it's nonsense to say that what is actual is not possible. — Metaphysician Undercover

There's a false dilemma there. There's something wrong with saying that the actual world is possible and something wrong with saying that it is not possible. I am trying to express that by saying that the actual world is not merely possible and that it is different from all the other possible worlds in that respect.

What you propose here is just ridiculous, because one could just as easily stipulate that the world which Branson's wife did not die, is the actual world. — Metaphysician Undercover

You are missing the point. You cannot stipulate which possible world is actual. That's not a decision that we can make. We can only recognize the status of the actual world.

A god logician will understand that they can only know what it is possible to know.

You are missing the point. You cannot stipulate which possible world is actual. That's not a decision that we can make. We can only recognize the status of the actual world. — Ludwig V

yep.

There's something wrong with saying that the actual world is possible and something wrong with saying that it is not possible. — Ludwig V

That's what I said, it's categorically distinct.

You are missing the point. You cannot stipulate which possible world is actual. — Ludwig V

That's Banno's claim. Banno said we stipulate which world is the actual world. I addressed that in my last post. If one of the possible worlds is supposed to represent the actual world, this needs to be justified rather than stipulated. But then the justification will be be judged.

That is why Banno's claim that modal logic gives us a rigorous way to talk about the actual world is incorrect. To apply rigor to the way that we talk about the actual world requires strict rules on the use of descriptive language, and also for justifying the claims of "actual". But this is outside the purveyance of modal logic.

A god logician will understand that they can only know what it is possible to know. — Banno

Sure, all of us atheists will agree with that. We know that "god" itself is inherently contradictory.

Banno said we stipulate which world is the actual world. — Metaphysician Undercover

Banno said we are int he actual world. He also said that we can stipulate that we are talking about the actual world - a bit of semantics. We do not get to stipulate that we are in the actual world.

You are playing on the difference between the metaphysical truth that we are in the actual world, and the semantic truth that we can stipulate whatever possible world we want. That failure to recognise the difference between semantics and metaphysics runs right through the confusion you show here.

By definition, the actual world is the one we are in. Is that what you are asking?

Or are you asking for proof that you are in the actual world? — Banno

Right now, as I post this, I am in the actual world of TPF. As are you when you are participating in it. It is very real. It psychically exists. It can be measured by both of us by observing not only our interactions but if we were to physically meet at whatever server or computer infrastructure contains our interactions. Someone who has never heard of TPF would have no knowledge or reason to believe in this "actual" world we are both present in, without visiting it themself, or visiting the underlying location this interaction is made possible by.

Now, say if me and another member were engaging in a private message. That's, in affect, it's own world. That only the two of us would know about and you would not be privy too. Naturally, you could say it's simply a function of the larger world of TPF and furthermore beyond that, a feature of the larger physical world we could both meet.

The fact remains, in each smaller world, each participant knows only what they're able to access, leaving that larger than it unknown, as if it didn't exist. Yet it does, but only those able to access it would know that.

So again, we go back to the original question. How do you know there's not a larger world than what you're able to access?

Or are you asking for proof that you are in the actual world? What could that look like? — Banno

I'm sure you and I are in the same world, as we're two entities able to communicate within it. But that doesn't mean, for certain, there's not a larger world in which only one of us may be able to access. That would, in theory, make that hypothetical larger place the "actual" world. No different than how a private message between myself and another is a "world" or "reality" that while myself and the person I'm speaking to could access, you yourself could not access. Just as this forum is a "world" that we can both "access" but someone who does not have access to a computer nor it's physical server location would not consider an "actual" location.

Seems to me you are playing on various differing uses of "world" here. The use of "world" in modal logic is clearly set out in the formal systems that use it. It need not be the same use as that used in describing the world of TPF.