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 Doubts about the existence of non-actual possible worlds cast doubt on C1 but not on B1

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment applies uniformly: quantifying over any entity in a true sentence commits us to that entity's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If B1 quantifies over possible states or ways things could be, it incurs the same modal ontological debt as C1, differing only in notational transparency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The epistemological asymmetry between B1 and C1 is therefore superficial, not structural, as both arguments presuppose a modal ontology to ground their truth conditions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Kripke's possible worlds semantics demonstrates that even actualist-friendly modal frameworks must posit truthmakers for modal claims that go beyond the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Any argument of the B1 form that makes irreducible modal claims cannot escape the ontological commitments that generate skepticism about C1, since both require modal truthmakers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.There is an enormous epistemological difference between the arguments B1 and C1
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Doubts about the existence of non-actual possible worlds cannot cast doubt on B1
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Doubts about the existence of non-actual possible worlds can cast doubt on C1
      ?

      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.