Brain-in-a-vat scenarios are not among the closest possible worlds to actuality, so their epistemic inaccessibility does not defeat knowledge claims grounded in tracking relations.
?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.
actuality(Contrasted with non-actuality; ceasing to be actual is equated with death and the loss of all distinctively human properties)
The state of being actual (as opposed to merely possible), associated with consciousness, embodiment, and lived human properties
inaccessibility(describing properties of mathematical objects)
In set theory, a property of certain large numbers (cardinals) that are so big they can't be reached or constructed using standard mathematical operations; they're 'too large to access' through normal means.
knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.
possible worlds(Leibniz's modal semantics, anticipating contemporary possible-worlds semantics)
Worlds that have existence in a tenuous sense; fictional worlds used to characterize the nature of possibles that are never actualized