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
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Adams necessarily exists

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Self-identity (a=a) is a logical truth only for terms that successfully refer, but names of contingent beings may fail to refer in worlds where those beings don't exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If 'Adams' is a rigid designator that presupposes its referent's existence, then (a=a) is not a pure logical truth but a metaphysically loaded one, making the derivation of necessary existence question-begging.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Kripke's framework for rigid designation does not entail that a designator refers in worlds where its bearer is absent, so GSA applied to contingent beings smuggles in existential presuppositions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.On a free logic interpretation, atomic predications including identity are false (not true) when the subject term lacks a referent in a given world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If free logic governs quantified modal logic, then (a=a) fails in worlds where Adams does not exist, breaking the derivation at P5 without any contradiction in the remaining premises.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.For any property F, by GSA (Generalized Substitution Axiom) and Nec, necessarily Adams has F only if Adams exists: □(Fa → E!a)
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Identity is a relation, so identity statements are atomic formulas governed by GSA
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.By GSA, Adams is self-identical only if Adams exists: a=a → E!a
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.