/lit/ - Literature

>>16380212
Literally who?

because possible worlds is a retarded concept

>>16380226
Wdym, possible worlds semantics is a good theoretical tool to talk about modal notions.

>>16380212
I think it stretches the limit of the 'indispensable to best theory'/'justification by theoretical parsimony' argument when you have to ascribe to such a profligate ontology. I'll gladly accept abstract objects like numbers and geometric shapes, but real possible worlds is too far. I don't know, I've never viewed the truth makers of modal statements as that important.
So it's an incredulous stare from me too.
>>16380217
Go back to eating glue.

>As I walk through the many of the possible worlds
>I take account of what is, and realise it’s manifold
>As I’ve been thinking and argu’ing so long, that
>even my counterparts think my mind is gone!
>But I ain't never crossed a square that didn't deserve it
>Me be using prim’tive modalities you know that's unheard of
>You better watch how you're talkin', and where you're walkin'
>Or you and your operators ‘be lined in chalk
>I really hate the Kripk’ but I gotta lope
>As they cope I see worldmates in the ersatz yoke, fools
>I’m the kinda G that sees all possibilia
>De Dicto in the night, De Se in the streetlight!

>Been spendin’ most their lives
>Livin’ in the philosopher’s paradise
>Been spendin’ most their lives
>Livin’ in the philosopher’s paradise
>Keep spendin’ most our lives
>Livin’ in the philosopher’s paradise
>Keep spendin’ most our lives
>Livin’ in the philosopher’s paradise

>Tell me why are we, so blind to see
>That ontology, can’t be deflationary
>Tell me why are we, so blind to see
>That ontology, can’t be deflationary

>>16380261
This is the only possible world.

The Platonist reveals his final form.

>>16380303
quality post kek

>>16380282
>Go back to eating glue.
Just tell me you stupid faggot.

>(BF) ◇∃xΦ ∃x◇Φ
>(CBF) ∃x◇Φ ◇∃xΦ
>Take classical first-order quantificational logic, add the sentential operator □ ("necessarily"), along with the necessitation rule of derivation ("□Φ may be derived from Φ"), and you will have BF and CBF as theorems; ◇ is defined as ¬□¬. To maintain soundness of this logic, we need to have BF and CBF valid. Within the Kripke semantics, the simplest way to do so is to have the domain function be constant, that is, to have one common set of objects to serve as the domain over which the quantifiers range for all possible worlds. Assuming that to exist at a given world is to belong to the domain for that world, this means that what exists at one world is exactly the same as what exists at another. Every possibile exists at every possible world.
Since all possible worlds are identical by Leibniz Law there is only one possible world, ours.

>>16380212
because analytics don't like anything too different. they're dogmatic and insular
>>16380217
david lewis
>>16380282
fuck off animeposter

>>16380212
Funny how Anglos managed to obliterate philosophy, a practice almost as old as civilization itself, within the time span of no more than a hundred years. Philosophy died with Germany.