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
    Necessitism entails N_Q — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→The Barcan Formula (BF) and Converse Barcan Formula (CBF) are unproblematic theorems under necessitism

    Necessitism entails N_Q

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.

    Topics

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    BF and CBF are theorems of SQMLQ + N_Q collapses into SQMLThe Barcan Formula (BF) and Converse Barcan Formula (CBF) are unproblematic theo...

    Similar

    Supersubstantivalism+ entails No Interpenetration

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Modality & Possibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    99%
    FM entails Value Definiteness (VD).97%
    Supervenience is not in general sufficient for entailment.77%
    Immutability entails necessity74%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Q simply collapses into SQML.[81] (The reader can quickly verify that \(\textbf{N}_{Q}\) and the necessitist principle \(\Box\textbf{N},\) are equivalent in Q.) More exactly put: for any formula \(\varphi\) of \(\scrL_\Box,\) \(\varphi\) is a theorem of SQML if and only if it is a theorem of \(Q+ \textbf{N}_{Q}\) and hence if and only if \(\forall \sfx\rS\sfx \to \varphi\) is a theorem of Q. In particular, both BF and CBF fall out as entirely unproblematic theorems under the assumption of nece

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective