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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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