Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    A semantics that cannot distinguish between different imp... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Belief semantics should use both possible and impossible worlds to avoid treating all impossible beliefs as equivalent

    A semantics that cannot distinguish between different impossible beliefs is too coarse-grained

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    Agents can believe some necessary truths without believing all necessary truthsBelief semantics should use both possible and impossible worlds to avoid treatin...If belief is modelled using only possible worlds, every impossible belief is tre...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Belief semantics should use both possible and impossible worlds to avo...85%If belief is modelled using only possible worlds, every impossible bel...80%Self-contradictory propositions are unintelligible.77%Necessity must be defined as impossible falsehood plus necessary stata...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: hyperintensionality
    View source passageHide passage
    Kripke (1965) already introduced “non-normal worlds” for the semantics of modal systems such as C.I. Lewis’ S2 and S3: such worlds were points where all formulas of the form \(\Diamond A\) are true, and all those of the form \(\Box A\) are false (intuitively: everything is possible, nothing is necessary). Cresswell (1970) offered a logic of belief in which beliefs were modelled with sets of both possible and impossible worlds, so as to not treat every impossible belief the same as every other, a

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective