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
    KQML does not genuinely escape ontological commitment to ... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    KQML does not genuinely escape ontological commitment to possibilia despite invalidating BF, CBF, and BoxN

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The domain function in KQML must be defined over a background set of all possible individuals across all worlds, presupposing that set's existence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Quine's criterion of ontological commitment applies to the domain of quantification in the metatheory, not merely the object-language quantifiers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.KQML's varying domains are carved from a fixed outer domain of possibilia, so restricting object-language quantifiers leaves the metatheoretic commitment intact.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Stalnaker's distinction between serious actualism and haecceitism shows that restricting quantifier range does not eliminate commitment to trans-world identity of individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.For KQML to validate 'Bergoglio might have had children', the individual Bergoglio must be available as a value across non-actual worlds in the model structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An individual available as a value across non-actual worlds satisfies the functional definition of a possibilium, regardless of whether the object-language quantifiers range over it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.An intended KQML interpretation can be constructed by transforming an intended SQML interpretation by defining a domain function that returns, for each world, the set of individuals actual at that world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.This transformation is a formal adjustment to the evaluation of quantified formulas and does not alter the ontological commitments of the resulting interpretation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The ontological commitments of the KQML interpretation so constructed are identical to those of the original SQML interpretation, which includes merely possible individuals
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Topics

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    An individual available as a value across non-actual worlds satisfies the functi...An intended KQML interpretation can be constructed by transforming an intended S...For KQML to validate 'Bergoglio might have had children', the individual Bergogl...KQML's varying domains are carved from a fixed outer domain of possibilia, so re...
    +6 moreShow less
    Quine's criterion of ontological commitment applies to the domain of quantificat...Stalnaker's distinction between serious actualism and haecceitism shows that res...The domain function in KQML must be defined over a background set of all possibl...The ontological commitments of the KQML interpretation so constructed are identi...There appears to be no other way to construct an intended Kripke interpretation ...This transformation is a formal adjustment to the evaluation of quantified formu...

    Similar

    Lewis's ontological commitment to possible worlds via the argument fro...82%Matter does not satisfy the ontological conditions for genuine substan...81%Curry does not seriously attempt to eliminate ontological commitment t...81%Collingwood's engagement with the ontological proof does not establish...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    On the face of it, KQML provides the actualist with a powerful alternative to SQML. However, one might well question its actualist credentials. Specifically, despite the invalidity of the actualistically objectionable principles BF, CBF, and \(\Box\textbf{N},\) it is questionable whether KQML has escaped ontological commitment to possibilia, for the following reason. KQML provides us with a formal semantics for (constant-free) modal languages \(\scrL_\Box\) and, in particular, an account of how
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit