Enabled?

Yes, modally, de jure is what Kripke calls it in technically true terms.

Yes, modally, de jure is what Kripke calls it in technically true. — Shawn

The OP is clearly talking about intension, not cases of aposteriori necessity.

I think the difference mainly shows up when we're talking about what people know or believe. — frank

You're talking about something completely different. I'm responding to @RogueAI talking about idealism-water, which is not in fact H2O, because H2O must be a substance.

Put it this way. Which of these do you agree with or disagree with?

• Regardless of whether materialism or idealism is true, if I apply a DC current to water, I will collect a gas at the negative end we can call hydrogen, and half as much gas at the positive end we can call oxygen.
• IF materialism is true but NOT if idealism is true, if I apply a DC current to water, I will collect a gas at the negative end we can call hydrogen, and half as much gas at the positive end we can call oxygen.
• The above, and the only reason we can't call this hydrogen and oxygen under idealism is that we're compelled to give them different names under idealism.

The first makes idealism a red herring. The second is equivalent to a claim that idealism is trivially testable. The third is equivalent to a claim that idealism somehow compels you to assign terms differently. What I want explained to me is why H2O must be a substance, not why H2O and water are different concepts.

The OP is clearly talking about intension, not cases of aposteriori necessity. — frank

How so? Point it out for me.

Sorry. I don't know what you're talking about.

Water and H2O are two different things because one can intelligently talk about water without knowing anything about chemistry. For example, "that water tastes OK". To talk intelligently about H2O, on the other hand, requires some background knowledge of chemistry. Of course, someone who doesn't know anything about chemistry can say, "That H2O looks cloudy", but if you ask them what they mean by "H2O", they won't be able to talk intelligently about it. — RogueAI

He's talking about what a speaker does and doesn't know. He's pointing to intensional operators.

He's talking about what a speaker does and doesn't know. He's pointing to intensional operators. — frank

Yeah, I was just pointing out that's it's not really chemistry; but, science ad hoc, according to Kripke.

Yeah, I was just pointing out that's it's not really chemistry; but, science ad hoc, according to Kripke. — Shawn

Ok

Frank, Shawn, what is a good resource for a primer on this stuff? Is Kripke pretty accessible?

Frank, Shawn, what is a good resource for a primer on this stuff? Is Kripke pretty accessible? — RogueAI

Naming and Necessity. It's cheap.

Frank, Shawn, what is a good resource for a primer on this stuff? Is Kripke pretty accessible? — RogueAI

Intension.

Regarding Kripke, I'd send a PM to Nagase. He shows up every now and then. He's pointed out problems with my secondary resources, so see if he can give you better ones.

Thanks.

H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20. If I go into a lab to do an experiment and I am instructed to add H20 and open the tap and add water, the experiment may fail. Water usually has more in it than molecules of H20.

A molecule of H20 does not have have some of the properties we associate with water. It is not wet.

one can intelligently talk about water without knowing anything about chemistry. — RogueAI

We have hard water where I live. We had to put in a water softener. In order to talk about the difference between hard and sort water you need to know a bit of chemistry. Otherwise you might think that hard water is ice cubes.

H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20. — Fooloso4

Not according to Kripke, but as I explained, this is not the issue being raised in the OP.

All sorts of common matter which have old names ("water" is an Old English / Dutch / German word; air, on the other hand, is derived from Greek 'aer' / Latin 'aer' / French 'air'). Starting a couple of centuries ago, water and air can be described chemically. The air we breathe is mostly N; O is a much smaller portion. Every breath you take includes neon, helium, krypton, xenon, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and argon -- plus whatever crap has been lofted into the air.

Talking about gases like xenon, argon and carbon dioxide is a different conversation than talking about the air, the wind, the breeze, the sky, or various other nouns having to do with "air".

Posts, conversations, dialogues, discourses, and discussions are not the same thing either. Nobody holds a discourse over the fence with their neighbor--unless they are inordinately pretentious.

Your post about the difference between water and H2O is somewhere between opening a delightful discussion and opening a can of worms that's been in the hot sun.

H20 is water, but water is not necessarily H20.
— Fooloso4

Not according to Kripke, but as I explained, this is not the issue being raised in the OP. — frank

Water and H20 can mean two different things and refer to two different objects.

But to tell the truth I don't know what the issue being raised in the OP is. It does not seem to be the same issue raised in subsequent posts.

Water and H20 can mean two different things and refer to two different objects. — Fooloso4

Sure. The example of H20 and water is part of a famous Kripkean demonstration of necessity in his possible worlds framework.

But to tell the truth I don't know what the issue being raised in the OP is. It does not seem to be the same issue raised in subsequent posts. — Fooloso4

It's about intension. Someone derailed the thread with talk of modal logic.

The example of H20 and water is part of a famous Kripkean demonstration of necessity in his possible worlds framework. — frank

What does he say? I am not asking you to point to a book or article.

It's about intension. — frank

What do you understand this to mean?

What does he say? I am not asking you to point to a book or article. — Fooloso4

I'll match the energy you put into talking about Wittgenstein with me. It's about possible worlds.

What do you understand this to mean? — Fooloso4

There's an SEP article on it. Linked above.

It's about possible worlds. — frank

And how does that relate to water and H20?

There's an SEP article on it. Linked above. — frank

Yes, but that does not tell me what it means to you.

You could do some reading about Kripke and intensional definition, then start threads.

You could do some reading about Kripke and intensional definition, then start threads. — frank

Nope. Not interested.

From the link you provided:

Intensional logic attempts to study both designation and meaning and investigate the relationships between them.

In the example I gave both the designation and meaning are different, that is, both the extension and intension are different.

Hesperus is Phosphorous both refer to Venus, but water and H20 do not necessary refer to the same thing. I do not have any problem with the fact that this known a posteriori, but with the fact that a clear distinction can be made in the case of water and H20 that does not exist with Hesperus is Phosphorous.

If you go into the lab and use tap water instead of H20 insisting that they are the same thing because Kripke told you they are, the experiment will fail. Tap water or water from a lake or river or rain all contain things other than hydrogen and oxygen in the ratio of two to one.

In the example I gave both the designation and meaning are different, that is, both the extension and intension are different. — Fooloso4

So let's shelve Kripke, ok? It's not relevant to the issue raised in the OP.

Note my previous comment:

Harvey thinks H20 is combustible. He doesn't think that water is, though.

It doesn't matter that "water" could be used to mean a mixture of chlorimine and water that might come from your tap. One is expected to discern the use here.

If you haven't grasped that use yet, then read on:

In terms of extensional definitions, these propositions are contradictory. This is an example of the value of thinking in terms of intension.

So by now, you should realize that the flexibility of language use is irrelevant.

Got it?

I don't know what you're talking about. — frank

I quoted this in my post:

H2O only refers to a physical substance. — RogueAI

Again, RogueAI is explaining why H2O and water mean different things. But his explanation is that, under idealism, H2O doesn't exist, since H2O has to be a substance.

I find the explanation a bit off. Is it really true that idealists cannot be chemists? If it's not true, this cannot be the explanation for why H2O and water mean different things.

Again, RogueAI is explaining why H2O and water mean different things. But his explanation is that, under idealism, H2O doesn't exist, since H2O has to be a substance. — InPitzotl

That's going overboard to find a wedge to drive between the terms.

It's much easier than that.

That's going overboard to find a wedge to drive between the terms.
It's much easier than that. — frank

I have a feeling you're not even having a conversation with me. Why then do you reply?

First you didn't respond to what I wrote. Then you claimed you didn't understand what I wrote. Now you're taking issue with the fact that I even said something. None of your three comments addressed the concern I raised.

The question I have is, why does idealism have to deny H2O? Again, a direct quote from RogueAI: "H2O only refers to a physical substance."

Replying to me without answering this question is... kind of pointless.

Idealism doesn't have to be substanceless. Some would say the world is made of idea stuff. In that case, an idealist would say H20 has substance.

We could conjure a kind of idealism that allows water, but not H20. This could be explained any which way in our world building expedition.

Does that come closer to answering?

Idealism doesn't have to be substanceless. — frank

If I grant this, then the explanation is wrong. H2O can be an idealistic substance.

We could conjure a kind of idealism that allows water, but not H20. — frank

But for this to be an explanation we need to fit some relevance criteria. So long as we're world building, let's grant "this" universe is materialistic. And let's just imagine a universe B the same as this one, except "water" in universe B refers to what we would call a cow. So now in universe B, water is not H2O. But that doesn't quite sound like it should be relevant to the nature of meaning in "this" universe; it sounds, rather, that universe-B-water is simply a different kind of thing than this-universe-water.

But let's compare this-universe to idealist-universe. We now have this-universe-water which refers to the same thing as H2O, and we have idealist-universe-water which is not. But is that relevant to meaning in this-universe, any more than universe-B water not being H2O is?

These things don't sound the same as semantics as I understand it. Clark Kent, in this universe, is Superman. So Clark Kent and Superman refer to the same person. If Lois was defenestrated and Superman saved her, it follows that Clark Kent saved her. But if Lois believes Clark Kent will help her write her next article, it does not follow that she believes Superman will help her write her next article. Here, we're talking about meaning in this universe, so it sounds relevant.

When you unpack what "H2O is water" means, you get a story of hydrogen and oxygen joining together by sharing electrons to form a molecule where the hydrogen and oxygen atoms still exist as distinct things. How on Earth would this work under idealism? The ideas of hydrogen and oxygen somehow combine to form a new idea (water) that is still composed of two distinct ideas (hydrogen and oxygen)? And this works only if they can share other ideas (electrons) that orbit around it?

As an idealist, I would say water is just part of the dream, and it will do whatever the dreamer wants it to do. It will look like a solid sometimes, or a liquid, or a gas. We've all had dreams of snow and rain and clouds. Why not dreams where water appears to be a collection of tiny particles? In idealism, there really isn't "water" just like there's no "water" in our dreams. There's just mind(s) experiencing the ever-changing dream they're (or it's) projecting.