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 Impossible worlds semantics (Priest, Berto) demonstrates that some entailment relations require ranging over worlds where necessities fail.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Impossible worlds lack principled constraints on what they contain, making the framework semantically indeterminate and unmotivated.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Standard possible-worlds semantics with modal operators already captures relevant entailment relations without ontological excess.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming necessities fail in some worlds seems to abandon necessity itself, making the concept incoherent rather than explanatory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Some valid inferences (like from contradictions) cannot be explained using only possible worlds where classical logic holds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Impossible worlds allow us to model meaningful distinctions between different ways propositions can fail, not just possible/impossible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Paraconsistent logic requires a semantic framework where contradictions exist without triviality, necessitating impossible worlds.
      ?

      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.