Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that An infinitely constructed disjunction listing E's true-worlds may be logically well-formed yet fail to capture the modal ground of E's necessity.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
If a complete disjunction of E's true-worlds exhaustively specifies all necessary truths about E, no further grounding remains needed.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding claims that appeal to something beyond the facts themselves face the regress problem: what grounds the ground?
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Modal necessity may simply consist in invariance across possible worlds; enumeration fully captures this without additional metaphysical substrate.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Logical well-formedness concerns syntax and consistency; grounding concerns metaphysical explanation of why necessity obtains.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
An infinite disjunction of worlds may be grammatically complete yet leave unexplained why those worlds—and no others—are necessary.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Modal grounding requires identifying the source or foundation of necessity, which enumeration alone cannot provide.
?
How convincing is this?
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.