For one, the idea of the adjacent possible makes it possible (hah) to think of the emergence of possibilities; usually, possibility is thought of as a purely abstract modal category in which certain possibilities are simply either 'realized' or not. — StreetlightX
In other words, possibility itself can be thought of as indexed to the real, and is not simply 'prior' to it — StreetlightX
This "adjacent possibility" idea is basically already part of modern discussions of modality. — MindForged
In other words, possibility itself can be thought of as indexed to the real, and is not simply 'prior' to it. All of which is to say that the idea of the adjacent possible forces us to revise the very status of modality as classically conceived. Possibility should not simply be thought of as simply pre-existing the real, as though models stowed in a Platonic locker room simply awaiting their realization, but rather, as themselves emerging from the changing configurations of reality itself. Leibniz had a similar approach to possibility in his understanding of 'incompossibility', as did Kant in his advocacy of a 'transcendental logic', but I'll simply mention them as philosophical precedences to the idea outlined above. — StreetlightX
But where your description does not seem to be accurate, is that the possibility of the smartphone was still there prior to the invention of the microchip, at a lower probability, requiring the invention of the microchip. So "adjacent possibilities" are not brought into existence by the preliminary invention, they always existed before. The preliminary invention makes the "adjacent possibilities" apprehendable to the human mind. — Metaphysician Undercover
I think the whole attempt to cash out possibility in terms of possible worlds is a giant mistake, and that any analytic metaphysics that takes that route is basically a new scholasticism not deserving of being taken seriously. — StreetlightX
attempts to take seriously the need to account for the individuation of possibility. It does not take the possible as a 'given', simply waiting in the wings to be actualised, even if as a second-order 'non-live' possibility. In the scientific context in which the concept was elaborated, the adjacent possible is created or brought into being where it simply did not 'exist' before hand even qua possible
Or to put it otherwise, what I like about the adjacent possible is that it provides what I think is another, far superior, scientifically grounded way of thinking about possibility than the idealist logical toys of modern day analytic metaphysicians. — StreetlightX
that as enabling constraints “create” the Adjacent space of possibilities into which evolution can become. — Kauffman
Well, to put my cards on the table early, I think the whole attempt to cash out possibility in terms of possible worlds is a giant mistake, and that any analytic metaphysics that takes that route is basically a new scholasticism not deserving of being taken seriously. — StreetlightX
Well I guess I just don't see the upshot of that position. Possibilities are individuated in talk of possible worlds. It's just that some possibilities are only accessible given some other possibilities being the case (e.g. the Bruce Wayne being a redhead example I gave). — MindForged
the potential-sense of possibility for rock falling is logically prior to the possible-world sense of possibility for rock falling, the latter would be said on the basis of the former. Adjacent possibility (potential being constrained by the actual) being the condition for the possibility (lulz) of substantive possibility (contingent truth or falsehood turning on holding in a possible world). — fdrake
. The lesson I took is that reductionism is a one-way trip. We can explain higher levels based on lower ones, but we can't predict higher levels based on lower ones. Doesn't that take the wind out of the adjacent possible's sails? — T Clark
Au contrarie, the idea is that the adjacent possible takes the wind out of reductionist sails. The Kauffman paper I linked to is not for nothing titled "Beyond Reductionism Twice". — StreetlightX
possible is internalised to the world — fdrake
So a rock having the potential energy to fall can be said to be possible within that world itself.
Sunflowers and mosquitoes and brains exist outside that circle of possibility." The idea of course is that they can be brought inside that circle of possibility after a certain level of evolutionary achievement has been reached — StreetlightX
don't think this is right. The expanding sphere opens up new possibilities that are not predictable. This shows up every time someone tries to speculate on the world of the future. It's always wrong because the whole system pivots on some little feature no one thought of before or noticed when it happened. — T Clark
In the scientific context in which the concept was elaborated, the adjacent possible is created or brought into being where it simply did not 'exist' before hand even qua possible; In Kauffman's own words: — StreetlightX
Once you fry an egg the raw egg can't be gotten from it. — fdrake
Reflexivity of the accessibility relation just says that the actual world (whatever that is) is always a possible world (whatever that is). So: — fdrake
You could say the same of any possible world, actuality becomes just an indexical property if its sense is equated with the reflexivity of an accessibility relation. — fdrake
physical possibility < metaphysical possibility < logical possibility — fdrake
I propose a name for that realm outside the circle of possibility - 'the circle of the fantastic'. — unenlightened
Possibilities are individuated in talk of possible worlds. — MindForged
That's basically what I said. If worlds couldn't access themselves then they wouldn't be a live possibility... with respect to themselves! — MindForged
I don't think I equated actuality with reflexivity, I brought that up when I was trying to think of what else you might have meant by "possibility in this world" Besides physical possibility. I think only on a modal realist's account is actuality just an indexical property. Arguably, that is a really attractive view in how to define actuality, though the rest of the theory is a bit... much. — MindForged
But there is especially the idea that the possible is less than the real, and that, for that reason, the possibility of things precedes their existence. They would thus be representable in advance; they could be thought before being realized. But it is the inverse that is the truth... — StreetlightX
Flying was dreamed of while it was impossible — unenlightened
Clearly it wasn't. — StreetlightX
Mercury, Pegasus, Daedalus, witches... to name but a few. And it's not equivocation; nature is blind to everything but the immediate, but human history simply is the realisation of fantasy under the guise of 'planning'. — unenlightened
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.