such that
and so a purported "gap between possible and actual" is conceptually incoherent in actualist terms. You're only chasing "possibilist" shadows, Fool, deeper and deeper into Meinong's Jungle. :chin:... by "a possible world" I understand a possible version of actuality (i.e. a possible way the actual world could have been or can be described), such that "actual" is not an index for any "possible world" at issue but rather is the extant domain, or universe, of possibilities (à la phase-space). — 180 Proof
Statements, not objects, can be true. :roll:Lots of imaginary things are true. Unicorns, for example. — theRiddler
I don't think there is a gap. If X is possible, X is actual. — theRiddler
I ouldn't possibly be wrong if I'm right. I'm gonna go now and let you atheists try to solve the mystery of your anal retention. — theRiddler
I couldn't possibly be wrong if I'm right. — theRiddler
And a fortiori its implications. No small topic at all. Who knows, perhaps the original epiphany and understanding, revealing both organized religion and even the idea of a separate god as even more profound, fearful, ignorant, and ultimately contemptible escapism as a whole than ever realized by its parts. Anyway, amen!I'm not happy to say I am god but I am aware of its truth nevertheless. — I like sushi
if X is not an actual world, it follows that there are reasons why X is not an actual world. These reasons show why X can't be an actual world. — TheMadFool
"Is not," "can't be": not interchangeable, not substitutable one for the other. Yours, then QE~D. — tim wood
Also this is what you're saying.
1. If X is an actual world then X is a possible world.
2. If X is a possible world then X is an actual world.
I can also say:
1. If is apple then it is a fruit
2. If is fruit then it is an apple
Possible world has a greater scope that contains all actual worlds
Therefore you can't say that a possible world is an actual world because possible worlds do not completely contain actual worlds in its set- there are some worlds that are just potential. Otherwise it would be not be a set of potential worlds but actual worlds. — ninjachewit
This: =>, is not the same as this <=>. Implies does not mean means.
And you still have the problem of validity, truth/falsity, soundness. And even this not a complete specification.
George is at home or George is at the store.
George is not at home.
George is at the store.
Valid, true, sound. But oops, George isn't at the store! Logic, caveat emptor. Or at least understand its limits and boundaries. — tim wood
There is a possible world in which my cat is ginger.Suppose a world Y is not actual. Why? There has to be a reason why that is. — TheMadFool
1. If X is not actual then X is necessarily not actual. — TheMadFool
There is a possible world in which my cat is ginger.
In the actual world, he is black. — Banno
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.