19:13 Sherlock Holmes famously used negative logic. Instead of trying to find tautologies, he would "eliminate that which is impossible, and whatever remains is the truth".
Negative logic (I usually hear it called refutation logic) is paraconsistent. Usually you pair it with some ordering on the irrefutable "facts" to determine the one true one. In the natural sciences, which is in many ways a refutation logic and has been called such by plenty of philosophers, that ordering is Occam's Razor
It is also useful to think in terms of Actors. An Actor is a "possible world" of beliefs or other data, who interacts with -> other Actors who have possibly different or inconsistent data.
If, when we're doing semantics, we're trying to tie the language we're using to something in the world and what this something is is usually some truth value... Does this mean these truth values may actually somehow exist in the world? Very weird. By the way, love the concept of your channel... and many videos too!
Thanks! Frege thought that truth values are objects. He called them the true and the false, and thought they were the designation of sentences, and roughly the way that names refer to ordinary objects. Most people don’t accept this view,instead thinking of truth values as properties of propositions. Sometimes logicians, identify truth with 1 and falsity with 0, but this is usually just a mathematical convenience rather than a metaphysical commitment.
@@AtticPhilosophy Thank you! So, if I understand correctly, when we're talking about FORMAL semantics, we're not necessarily making any metaphysical commitments?
So you don't think *some* possibilities are not real? The word "some" there is a quantifier. A statement with a quantifier is often easier to know than every specific case. Are you sure you won't need quantifier words like: "most", "all", "some", "quite", and "few"?
Could you say something more about applications of possible world semantics in those non-philosophical matters you mentioned? It's hard for me to see how it could be used in computer science or economics
Consider a (non-binary) symmetric monoidal closed category where the tensor product lacks projections, and is left-adjoint to implication. A monad on this structure is a closure operator: "Possible" and "Necessary" form an adjoint pair of such monads. Other pairs include Knowledge~Belief, Obligatory~Allowed, and even the usual ForAll~ThereExists, etc. A major implication for philosophy here is the use of "Validity" instead of simply "Truth", and the ability to deal with inconsistent data. This is Relevance Logic, and it's probably more important for "non-philosophical matters" than binary logic (which is fine for computers but is brittle and full of paradoxes). Relevance logic solves the Liar Paradox: indeed you can construct #RM3 from Z2 the same way the complex numbers are constructed from the reals, by solving an "unsolvable" equation like x^2=-1 or AND(x, NOT(x))=True --- it's Both, the third truth value. Furthermore most relevance fallacies just go away --- for a long time most people just threw their hands in the air and called them "informal fallacies". But in RM3 they are indeed "formal" fallacies, and you can just compute that they are invalid. For example the formula called Weakening (a -> (b -> a)) is invalid, and is at the heart of many paradoxes in binary logic. Also notice that SQL implements 3-valued logic. Inconsistency in databases is a very real problem, solved by using monadic logical operators such as "possible", so that's already being used in computer science
Hi Attic Philosophy. I really enjoy your videos. I was wondering would it be possible to get some advice from you as a person who is most likely much more experienced in philosophy than myself. I have recently finished my MA in philosophy and my main area of interest in philosophy is the metaphysics of science - especially the philosophy of space and time. I am interested in going further and doing a PhD in philosophy. However, I am struggling to think of an idea for a thesis that has a core element of originality. I don’t even know where to begin with finding a unique area within the metaphysics of science that offers the potential for a unique contribution (it almost feels like most things have been thought up by someone else before). With this in mind, I was wondering could you possibly give me any advice with how to begin fixing this conundrum so I may possibly fulfil a dream of doing a PhD and continuing further with academic philosophy? Thanks for reading!
The usual way is to read a load of recent articles in the areas you like, see what’s happening, and pick a topic from that list. Prioritize articles in high quality journals from well known philosophers. Some ideas might be: - the hole problem in metaphysics of spacetime - metaphysics of fundamental fields - fundamentally and grounding applied to particle physics - whether time is fundamental or emergent - what makes some entity a physical entity - the many-worlds interpretation & modality - whether time really flows (and how) You then need to think about where you’d like to study & with whom. Not every dept has a quality philosopher of science, so you need to have a thorough look around. Hope that helps!
@@AtticPhilosophy This is ironic that I have seen this comment because as I begin my third year as an undergraduate, I have also been thinking carefully about my academic future and have decided to pursue further studies, ultimately aiming for a PhD. While I’ve had preliminary discussions with several professors, I have yet to find a strong, original idea to focus on. I noticed your response to a previous commentator, and while I have some interest in the philosophy of time, it isn’t necessarily my preferred area within metaphysics. I was therefore hoping you might be able to suggest a broader list of contemporary debates within metaphysics (+philosophy of science, +philosophy of religion) that could help guide me in refining my research interests. Additionally, if there are any resources or websites designed to assist with generating PhD topic ideas, I would greatly appreciate any recommendations. Thank you 😊.
@@jimmyfaulkner1855 You're best off reading a bunch of contemporary articles (or just skimming the abstracts) to see what's current. Look through the most recent volumes of Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, for example. Some topics that get a lot of attention: - Grounding - Mereology/composition/pluralities - Modality & counterfactuals - Time & change - Fundamentality - Philosophy of physics (as it intersects with metaphysics)
Still thinking about this- is accessibility a choice of someone thinking about the various possible universes or would there still be accessibility relationships if there wasn't anyone thinking about these universes? i.e. is there a rule to say which pairs of universes have lines and what directions or is that some sort of belief? Are those accessibility lines line time, i.e. this universe could turn into that?
As far as the logic is concerned, it doesn't matter. How we think of it depends on the application. In epistemic logic (about knowledge): u is accessible from w (Rwu) is taken to mean that u is possible for all the agent knows at w. If modelling metaphysical necessity, by contrast, accessibility is meant understood as a hard fact. (Or, for anti-realists, as something like: compatibility with our conventions.) For physical necessity, it's more like: having the same laws of nature.
Very interesting discussion. Love the enthusiasm! So what must be true in every possible world? Each possible world consists of the conjunction of every little thing in it. But does this specify any general rules of interaction? Can the laws of physics be derives from this conjunction of things? The answer can be found if you look up, "efforts to derive the laws of physics from the principles of logic alone". Is seems the laws of physics must be the same in every possible world.
It's an open metaphysical question whether the laws of physics are metaphysically necessary. They're not logically necessary, which is why physicists need experiments. One argument (or intuition) that they're not metaphysically necessary: scientific laws involve various constants, like the speed of light. According to physics, photons can't travel at any speed but c. But couldn't c have been different, metaphysically speaking? If so, then the laws of physics would also have been different. But there's also arguments the other way. Eg plausibly, it's essential to the identity of photons that they travel at c, and what's essential is metaphysically necessary. In short: no easy answers!
@@AtticPhilosophy But surely there is a reason for everything physical. This is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The only alternative is to assume that there exists something physical that is just a brute fact. Perhaps it's the fundamental particles, perhaps the 4D spacetime, perhaps the infinite size of the universe. The problem with brute facts, however, is that this theory is inherently not provable or observable. It's just an assumption some scientists make so they don't have to address the issue. But what is shown in the reference I gave is that quantum theory can be logically derived from the conjunction of facts that exists in any possible possible world. The various kinds of particles are also shown to be necessary. There is a construction of the various particles that looks very much like the Cayley-Dickson construction of the hypercomplex numbers. We go from the complex numbers to the quaternions to the octonions. And these correspond to the Standard Model symmetries, U(1), SU(2), and SU(3).
@@mikejurney9102 That's trivially true, if 'the conjunction of facts' includes the laws of physics, but if it doesn't, then that seems very, very unlikely. Suppose there's a possible world containing just 1 photon (nothing else). How would you derive all the laws of physics from that? On principle of sufficient reason: it's a hypothesis, but there's no convincing argument that it's true. If quantum indeterminacy is fundamental, then PSR looks false.
That’s a great question! The idea is that truth at a world is just set membership: so proposition p is true at world w when w is a member of p. It works nicely, but whether that’s really truth is an open question.
Humans do not determine what is possible in reality. Reality determines it. Humans constantly and continuously learn what is possible in reality. No meaning is absolute. Nothing is absolute. This includes that no truth is absolute. Logic is a simplification of the regularities and apparent causal relationships distinguished in reality, and it is a work in progress. Within this framework, nothing has a probability of certainty or existence of 100%. Some things and circumstances have a higher probability of existing than others, but none have guaranteed existence in the terms understood at a given moment.
@@AtticPhilosophy Nope. That is just a convenient convention. That would imply that something is equal to itself over time. Things are only equal to themselves in the instant being considered as such. Every thing in reality mutates constantly. This implies that there cannot be an absolute equality between an entity and that same entity in later instants. The concept of "absolute" is a result of idealism and is an anachronistic concept. :)
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd It's a logical truth, which isn't just a convention. For if there were no humans, so no conventions, it would still be true that, for example, (either humans exist or don't exist). No mention of identity there. But fwiw, some things are identical over time, although they constantly change too. Just ask: how old are you? If you're, say, 24, then that implies you are identical to some newborn in 2000.
@@AtticPhilosophy The limits of logic are a convention. They adapt to the field in which you want to apply those rules. The rules governing the behavior of reality vary depending on the field you are considering. Classical physics is not the same as quantum physics. Reality is still not understood. Truth does not exist without humans. A truth is the conceptualization of some aspect of reality that has a good probability of having a correct correspondence with what it attempts to represent. Only humans are capable of critically considering their conceptualizations. You said: "Just ask: how old are you? If you're, say, 24, then that implies you are identical to some newborn in 2000." This is absurd in this context. Are you asserting an absolute identity based on the age of those who were born in the same year??? I would have sworn you would notice how conventional the data of a person's age is. If age is a period of time that goes from birth to the present, this means there is a high improbability that there is an absolute correspondence between the periods of individuals born in a given year. The concept of "absolute" is not applicable to reality.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Last on this (since I have actual philosophy work to do today!): your age in years is the number of times the earth has rotated the sun since you began to exist. On your view, you have existed for maybe not one whole rotation, so you're not yet 1 year old. So you can believe this view but don't say it out loud when ordering at the bar!
These are great videos. Your channel deserves to be bigger, but you have to fix your thumbnails to grow. It pains me to see this channel underperforming because of thumbnails.
The whole Idea of possible worlds is wrong and terribly misleading, for there cannot be in fact different worlds that are possible. Putting this in reference to the Talk of "could have been otherwise but must Not have been this way it actually is or will be", one can See, why it is completely False to hold this to true, scince there cannot be two equal possibiliies in the Same Respect, hence one is Impossible, and never could what is be or have been otherwise, Nor will it ever be otherwise, for it is Impossible. The Talk of possible worlds and Modal Logic itself as it seems Presuppose the existence and meaningfullness of contingency. But there is No contingency, other then in the sphere of speculation about whatever in Respect to the Relation of General/Particular for example. If a Cat is Brown, IT must be true, that a Cat must be able to be Brown. But scince there is Not only a Grey Cat, but Out of our understanding of color and Cats, we can deduce, that a Cat can also be Grey, and of many more colors, scince it is Not clear, why a Cat would Not be able to have more colors If it has already two when concidering two particular Cats. This Relation, of General and particular is Common and necessary for thought. But this has nothing to do with possible worlds or whatever of that Kind. Scince it is both necessary of the General and particular what is the Case about them, and never is it otherwise. Scince my Cat, If i Had one, has orange furr, it is Impossible to say, that it could equally have had not-orange furr, for it would Not have it, If it where possible. Nothing whatsoever, If adressed in appropriate mannor, is in any way otherwise scince it can and could Not be. There are furthermore no two possibilites understood as real alternatives, scince what is equally possible is equally real, for only that is, that can be and vice versa. But since they contradict each other, they cancel each other Out, so that both are Impossible, which reveals the contradiction. Where one to be 'more' possible, the Other is automatically Impossible, scince there cannot be w Grade of possibility Like in Truth. All Things concerning knowledge, Like probability, have nothing to do directly with Truth or Falsety.
You say “my cat, if I had one …”. you could have had one, but you don’t. That’s contingency! It’s not a necessary fact that you don’t have a cat. It’s true, but continently so.
@AtticPhilosophy @AtticPhilosophy thank you for answer. But i have to disagree. I spoke in hypothetical, meaning, that i Put forth a General example, although it does Not apply to be personaly. Just Like i can speak of suffering, while Not suffering myself at the Moment. This has nothing to do with contingency, but with General thought, of which Logic in its Abstraction and Universal application relies in. But indeed, what you speak of is contingency, for you Said, i could have had one, although i have non, scince i did Not got one. And there lies the Problem. I do Not have a Cat, Nor did I got one. Scince this is true, the opposite is Not true and cannot be true, scince this implies a contradiction. Truth furthermore is Not variable to Timereference or our knowledge. A good example are facts about the past relative to our Standpoint. Scince they are right, they cannot be False, and scince all Times reference to another, there is No Time where anything can be different then it is. It is called logical Determinism as you will know. Let us concider you thought, that i could have had a Cat although i did Not, meaning, that both cases are possible. Scince they are both possible as you say, they are both true, since only that is, that is possible, and what is Not possible, is Not. But since both cannot be equally possible, scince this would be contradictory and Impossible in Reality by that, both are Not equally possible and by that, one is necessarily Impossible. If one wishes to call hypotheticals in thought contingencies, one might do so, If one understands the right meaning. But If otherwise i hold, that it Makes No Sense and is wrong. Let me know what you think. Greetings.
19:13 Sherlock Holmes famously used negative logic. Instead of trying to find tautologies, he would "eliminate that which is impossible, and whatever remains is the truth".
Or what remains is just possible then
This logic gets people in prison for 4 years for crimes they didn’t commit
That's really bad logic. There's plenty of contingent falsehoods: not impossible, but not true either.
@@AtticPhilosophy Mr. Holmes, and Spock, for that matter, despite being experts in logic, apparently never studied modal logic
Negative logic (I usually hear it called refutation logic) is paraconsistent. Usually you pair it with some ordering on the irrefutable "facts" to determine the one true one. In the natural sciences, which is in many ways a refutation logic and has been called such by plenty of philosophers, that ordering is Occam's Razor
It is also useful to think in terms of Actors. An Actor is a "possible world" of beliefs or other data, who interacts with -> other Actors who have possibly different or inconsistent data.
Such a great way of putting this. I'll be using this with people for a while I imagine ❤
Suuuuurely a truthmaker semantics vid is in store 🤔
Well I thought I couldn’t property explain truthmaker semantics without first explaining possible worlds semantics. So … watch this space!
Thank you so much sir
If, when we're doing semantics, we're trying to tie the language we're using to something in the world and what this something is is usually some truth value... Does this mean these truth values may actually somehow exist in the world? Very weird. By the way, love the concept of your channel... and many videos too!
Thanks! Frege thought that truth values are objects. He called them the true and the false, and thought they were the designation of sentences, and roughly the way that names refer to ordinary objects. Most people don’t accept this view,instead thinking of truth values as properties of propositions. Sometimes logicians, identify truth with 1 and falsity with 0, but this is usually just a mathematical convenience rather than a metaphysical commitment.
@@AtticPhilosophy Thank you! So, if I understand correctly, when we're talking about FORMAL semantics, we're not necessarily making any metaphysical commitments?
To say I am metaphysically conservative would be an understatement. I am a metaphysical Luddite. Get rid of quantifiers!
So you don't think *some* possibilities are not real? The word "some" there is a quantifier. A statement with a quantifier is often easier to know than every specific case. Are you sure you won't need quantifier words like: "most", "all", "some", "quite", and "few"?
Get rid of all quantifiers or just some?
Could you say something more about applications of possible world semantics in those non-philosophical matters you mentioned? It's hard for me to see how it could be used in computer science or economics
Used in semantics of programming languages (CS) and game theory (economics).
Consider a (non-binary) symmetric monoidal closed category where the tensor product lacks projections, and is left-adjoint to implication. A monad on this structure is a closure operator: "Possible" and "Necessary" form an adjoint pair of such monads. Other pairs include Knowledge~Belief, Obligatory~Allowed, and even the usual ForAll~ThereExists, etc. A major implication for philosophy here is the use of "Validity" instead of simply "Truth", and the ability to deal with inconsistent data. This is Relevance Logic, and it's probably more important for "non-philosophical matters" than binary logic (which is fine for computers but is brittle and full of paradoxes). Relevance logic solves the Liar Paradox: indeed you can construct #RM3 from Z2 the same way the complex numbers are constructed from the reals, by solving an "unsolvable" equation like x^2=-1 or AND(x, NOT(x))=True --- it's Both, the third truth value.
Furthermore most relevance fallacies just go away --- for a long time most people just threw their hands in the air and called them "informal fallacies". But in RM3 they are indeed "formal" fallacies, and you can just compute that they are invalid. For example the formula called Weakening (a -> (b -> a)) is invalid, and is at the heart of many paradoxes in binary logic.
Also notice that SQL implements 3-valued logic. Inconsistency in databases is a very real problem, solved by using monadic logical operators such as "possible", so that's already being used in computer science
A shame to spoil something so nice as possible worlds with something so contrived as truthmaker semantics.
@@matepenava5888 Nice try, ghost of David Lewis.
Hi Attic Philosophy. I really enjoy your videos. I was wondering would it be possible to get some advice from you as a person who is most likely much more experienced in philosophy than myself. I have recently finished my MA in philosophy and my main area of interest in philosophy is the metaphysics of science - especially the philosophy of space and time. I am interested in going further and doing a PhD in philosophy. However, I am struggling to think of an idea for a thesis that has a core element of originality. I don’t even know where to begin with finding a unique area within the metaphysics of science that offers the potential for a unique contribution (it almost feels like most things have been thought up by someone else before). With this in mind, I was wondering could you possibly give me any advice with how to begin fixing this conundrum so I may possibly fulfil a dream of doing a PhD and continuing further with academic philosophy? Thanks for reading!
The usual way is to read a load of recent articles in the areas you like, see what’s happening, and pick a topic from that list. Prioritize articles in high quality journals from well known philosophers. Some ideas might be:
- the hole problem in metaphysics of spacetime
- metaphysics of fundamental fields
- fundamentally and grounding applied to particle physics
- whether time is fundamental or emergent
- what makes some entity a physical entity
- the many-worlds interpretation & modality
- whether time really flows (and how)
You then need to think about where you’d like to study & with whom. Not every dept has a quality philosopher of science, so you need to have a thorough look around.
Hope that helps!
@@AtticPhilosophy This is ironic that I have seen this comment because as I begin my third year as an undergraduate, I have also been thinking carefully about my academic future and have decided to pursue further studies, ultimately aiming for a PhD. While I’ve had preliminary discussions with several professors, I have yet to find a strong, original idea to focus on.
I noticed your response to a previous commentator, and while I have some interest in the philosophy of time, it isn’t necessarily my preferred area within metaphysics. I was therefore hoping you might be able to suggest a broader list of contemporary debates within metaphysics (+philosophy of science, +philosophy of religion) that could help guide me in refining my research interests. Additionally, if there are any resources or websites designed to assist with generating PhD topic ideas, I would greatly appreciate any recommendations.
Thank you 😊.
@@jimmyfaulkner1855 You're best off reading a bunch of contemporary articles (or just skimming the abstracts) to see what's current. Look through the most recent volumes of Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, for example. Some topics that get a lot of attention:
- Grounding
- Mereology/composition/pluralities
- Modality & counterfactuals
- Time & change
- Fundamentality
- Philosophy of physics (as it intersects with metaphysics)
Still thinking about this- is accessibility a choice of someone thinking about the various possible universes or would there still be accessibility relationships if there wasn't anyone thinking about these universes? i.e. is there a rule to say which pairs of universes have lines and what directions or is that some sort of belief? Are those accessibility lines line time, i.e. this universe could turn into that?
As far as the logic is concerned, it doesn't matter. How we think of it depends on the application. In epistemic logic (about knowledge): u is accessible from w (Rwu) is taken to mean that u is possible for all the agent knows at w. If modelling metaphysical necessity, by contrast, accessibility is meant understood as a hard fact. (Or, for anti-realists, as something like: compatibility with our conventions.) For physical necessity, it's more like: having the same laws of nature.
Very interesting discussion. Love the enthusiasm! So what must be true in every possible world? Each possible world consists of the conjunction of every little thing in it. But does this specify any general rules of interaction? Can the laws of physics be derives from this conjunction of things? The answer can be found if you look up, "efforts to derive the laws of physics from the principles of logic alone". Is seems the laws of physics must be the same in every possible world.
It's an open metaphysical question whether the laws of physics are metaphysically necessary. They're not logically necessary, which is why physicists need experiments. One argument (or intuition) that they're not metaphysically necessary: scientific laws involve various constants, like the speed of light. According to physics, photons can't travel at any speed but c. But couldn't c have been different, metaphysically speaking? If so, then the laws of physics would also have been different. But there's also arguments the other way. Eg plausibly, it's essential to the identity of photons that they travel at c, and what's essential is metaphysically necessary. In short: no easy answers!
@@AtticPhilosophy But surely there is a reason for everything physical. This is the Principle of Sufficient Reason. The only alternative is to assume that there exists something physical that is just a brute fact. Perhaps it's the fundamental particles, perhaps the 4D spacetime, perhaps the infinite size of the universe. The problem with brute facts, however, is that this theory is inherently not provable or observable. It's just an assumption some scientists make so they don't have to address the issue.
But what is shown in the reference I gave is that quantum theory can be logically derived from the conjunction of facts that exists in any possible possible world. The various kinds of particles are also shown to be necessary. There is a construction of the various particles that looks very much like the Cayley-Dickson construction of the hypercomplex numbers. We go from the complex numbers to the quaternions to the octonions. And these correspond to the Standard Model symmetries, U(1), SU(2), and SU(3).
@@mikejurney9102 That's trivially true, if 'the conjunction of facts' includes the laws of physics, but if it doesn't, then that seems very, very unlikely. Suppose there's a possible world containing just 1 photon (nothing else). How would you derive all the laws of physics from that? On principle of sufficient reason: it's a hypothesis, but there's no convincing argument that it's true. If quantum indeterminacy is fundamental, then PSR looks false.
If propositions are sets, but how can we understand that sets having propetrites of being True/False?
That’s a great question! The idea is that truth at a world is just set membership: so proposition p is true at world w when w is a member of p. It works nicely, but whether that’s really truth is an open question.
@@AtticPhilosophy so in that case, w becomes a part of a proposition?
@@ZishanWazedBegg on this view, propositions are sets of possible worlds.
Humans do not determine what is possible in reality. Reality determines it.
Humans constantly and continuously learn what is possible in reality.
No meaning is absolute. Nothing is absolute. This includes that no truth is absolute.
Logic is a simplification of the regularities and apparent causal relationships distinguished in reality, and it is a work in progress.
Within this framework, nothing has a probability of certainty or existence of 100%.
Some things and circumstances have a higher probability of existing than others, but none have guaranteed existence in the terms understood at a given moment.
True, maybe, false, false, false, false. For probability of 1, try p v ~p, since that’s a theorem of probability theory.
@@AtticPhilosophy Nope. That is just a convenient convention.
That would imply that something is equal to itself over time.
Things are only equal to themselves in the instant being considered as such.
Every thing in reality mutates constantly. This implies that there cannot be an absolute equality between an entity and that same entity in later instants.
The concept of "absolute" is a result of idealism and is an anachronistic concept.
:)
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd It's a logical truth, which isn't just a convention. For if there were no humans, so no conventions, it would still be true that, for example, (either humans exist or don't exist). No mention of identity there. But fwiw, some things are identical over time, although they constantly change too. Just ask: how old are you? If you're, say, 24, then that implies you are identical to some newborn in 2000.
@@AtticPhilosophy The limits of logic are a convention. They adapt to the field in which you want to apply those rules. The rules governing the behavior of reality vary depending on the field you are considering. Classical physics is not the same as quantum physics.
Reality is still not understood.
Truth does not exist without humans. A truth is the conceptualization of some aspect of reality that has a good probability of having a correct correspondence with what it attempts to represent. Only humans are capable of critically considering their conceptualizations.
You said: "Just ask: how old are you? If you're, say, 24, then that implies you are identical to some newborn in 2000."
This is absurd in this context. Are you asserting an absolute identity based on the age of those who were born in the same year??? I would have sworn you would notice how conventional the data of a person's age is. If age is a period of time that goes from birth to the present, this means there is a high improbability that there is an absolute correspondence between the periods of individuals born in a given year.
The concept of "absolute" is not applicable to reality.
@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Last on this (since I have actual philosophy work to do today!): your age in years is the number of times the earth has rotated the sun since you began to exist. On your view, you have existed for maybe not one whole rotation, so you're not yet 1 year old. So you can believe this view but don't say it out loud when ordering at the bar!
These are great videos. Your channel deserves to be bigger, but you have to fix your thumbnails to grow. It pains me to see this channel underperforming because of thumbnails.
And titles.
ENTP it by 10x and this is what you get:
The whole Idea of possible worlds is wrong and terribly misleading, for there cannot be in fact different worlds that are possible.
Putting this in reference to the Talk of "could have been otherwise but must Not have been this way it actually is or will be", one can See, why it is completely False to hold this to true, scince there cannot be two equal possibiliies in the Same Respect, hence one is Impossible, and never could what is be or have been otherwise, Nor will it ever be otherwise, for it is Impossible. The Talk of possible worlds and Modal Logic itself as it seems Presuppose the existence and meaningfullness of contingency.
But there is No contingency, other then in the sphere of speculation about whatever in Respect to the Relation of General/Particular for example.
If a Cat is Brown, IT must be true, that a Cat must be able to be Brown. But scince there is Not only a Grey Cat, but Out of our understanding of color and Cats, we can deduce, that a Cat can also be Grey, and of many more colors, scince it is Not clear, why a Cat would Not be able to have more colors If it has already two when concidering two particular Cats. This Relation, of General and particular is Common and necessary for thought. But this has nothing to do with possible worlds or whatever of that Kind. Scince it is both necessary of the General and particular what is the Case about them, and never is it otherwise. Scince my Cat, If i Had one, has orange furr, it is Impossible to say, that it could equally have had not-orange furr, for it would Not have it, If it where possible.
Nothing whatsoever, If adressed in appropriate mannor, is in any way otherwise scince it can and could Not be.
There are furthermore no two possibilites understood as real alternatives, scince what is equally possible is equally real, for only that is, that can be and vice versa. But since they contradict each other, they cancel each other Out, so that both are Impossible, which reveals the contradiction. Where one to be 'more' possible, the Other is automatically Impossible, scince there cannot be w Grade of possibility Like in Truth. All Things concerning knowledge, Like probability, have nothing to do directly with Truth or Falsety.
You say “my cat, if I had one …”. you could have had one, but you don’t. That’s contingency! It’s not a necessary fact that you don’t have a cat. It’s true, but continently so.
@AtticPhilosophy @AtticPhilosophy thank you for answer. But i have to disagree. I spoke in hypothetical, meaning, that i Put forth a General example, although it does Not apply to be personaly. Just Like i can speak of suffering, while Not suffering myself at the Moment. This has nothing to do with contingency, but with General thought, of which Logic in its Abstraction and Universal application relies in.
But indeed, what you speak of is contingency, for you Said, i could have had one, although i have non, scince i did Not got one. And there lies the Problem. I do Not have a Cat, Nor did I got one. Scince this is true, the opposite is Not true and cannot be true, scince this implies a contradiction. Truth furthermore is Not variable to Timereference or our knowledge. A good example are facts about the past relative to our Standpoint. Scince they are right, they cannot be False, and scince all Times reference to another, there is No Time where anything can be different then it is. It is called logical Determinism as you will know.
Let us concider you thought, that i could have had a Cat although i did Not, meaning, that both cases are possible. Scince they are both possible as you say, they are both true, since only that is, that is possible, and what is Not possible, is Not. But since both cannot be equally possible, scince this would be contradictory and Impossible in Reality by that, both are Not equally possible and by that, one is necessarily Impossible.
If one wishes to call hypotheticals in thought contingencies, one might do so, If one understands the right meaning. But If otherwise i hold, that it Makes No Sense and is wrong.
Let me know what you think.
Greetings.
Also you DO know both 1+1=2 and Fermat's theorem, you just wouldn't be comfortable with the symbolic expressions of the latter.
That’s one line, but I’ve never found it plausible. Do I know how to beat any grandmaster with white? I’d say I don’t.