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 objection to the existence of non-actual possible worlds does not cast doubt on materialism.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Materialism and the existence of non-actual possible worlds are not substantively connected.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If two claims are not substantively connected, then evidence against one does not constitute evidence against the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Materialism is a thesis about the actual world: that everything that actually exists is physical or functionally reducible to the physical.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-actual possible worlds, in Lewis's modal realism, are spatiotemporally isolated from the actual world and thus outside the scope of materialist ontological commitment.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A thesis whose subject matter is the actual world cannot be falsified by claims about entities stipulated to be causally and spatiotemporally disconnected from it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment ties a theory's commitments to the existential quantifiers in its canonical paraphrase, not to modal idioms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The materialist can adopt a deflationary or ersatz modal semantics (as Stalnaker and Armstrong do) that eliminates commitment to concrete non-actual worlds entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If materialism can be fully stated without quantifying over non-actual possible worlds, objections to those worlds carry no logical force against the materialist thesis.
      ?

      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.