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 An individual available as a value across non-actual worlds satisfies the functional definition of a possibilium, regardless of whether the object-language quantifiers range over it.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Quantificational range directly constitutes what we mean by 'available as a value'—entities outside our quantifiers aren't genuinely available to us at all.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Decoupling functional definition from quantificational scope creates ungrounded entities that play no explanatory role in semantics or metaphysics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If an individual cannot be referenced or quantified over even in principle, calling it a 'possibilium' is metaphysically idle and violates parsimony.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Possibilia are individuated by their modal profile across possible worlds, independent of what any language happens to quantify over.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an object plays the functional role of a possible individual (having properties in worlds, standing in cross-world relations), it qualifies as possibilium regardless of linguistic access.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Language-independence for abstract modal objects prevents arbitrary stipulation: what counts as possible shouldn't depend on our quantificational choices.
      ?

      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.