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
    O and S are not the same ship in the actual world — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    O and S are not the same ship in the actual world

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Let w be a possible world just like the actual world in that O is manufactured exactly as it is in the actual world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In w, another ship S', exactly similar to O, is simultaneously built out of precisely the same parts that S is built out of in the actual world
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.S' and O are clearly different ships in w
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The Necessity of Distinctness (P5) presupposes rigid designation across worlds, but 'O' and 'S' may be world-bound descriptions, not rigid designators.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If ship-names are non-rigid, S' in w need not be identical to S in the actual world, breaking the transitivity step in P4.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without rigid designation, Chisholm-style cases show cross-world identity is conventional, not metaphysically necessary, undermining the modal inference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.David Lewis's counterpart theory denies strict trans-world identity; 'same ship' relations are similarity-based and context-sensitive, not absolute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Under counterpart theory, P3's claim that S' and O are 'clearly distinct' in w does not license a conclusion about numerical identity in the actual world.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The argument illicitly imports a Kripkean essentialist framework that Lewis and Geach-style relativists explicitly reject as question-begging against four-dimensionalist alternatives.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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

    Topics

    Personal IdentityModality & Possibility

    Related

    By the Necessity of Distinctness (ND), if two things are distinct in some possib...David Lewis's counterpart theory denies strict trans-world identity; 'same ship'...If ship-names are non-rigid, S' in w need not be identical to S in the actual wo...In w, another ship S', exactly similar to O, is simultaneously built out of prec...
    +7 moreShow less
    Let w be a possible world just like the actual world in that O is manufactured e...S and S' are the same shipS' and O are clearly different ships in wThe Necessity of Distinctness (P5) presupposes rigid designation across worlds, ...The argument illicitly imports a Kripkean essentialist framework that Lewis and ...Under counterpart theory, P3's claim that S' and O are 'clearly distinct' in w d...Without rigid designation, Chisholm-style cases show cross-world identity is con...

    Similar

    S and S' are the same ship94%O and S must be the same ship94%O and S cannot be the same ship93%O and O' are distinct ships92%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: identity-relative
    View source passageHide passage
    Kripke’s reasoning can be applied to the present case (Kripke and others might dispute this claim; see below). Let \(w\) be a possible world just like the actual world in that \(O\), the original ship, is manufactured exactly as it is in the actual world. In \(w\), however, another ship, \(S'\), exactly similar to \(O\), is simultaneously built out of precisely the same parts that \(S\), the remodeled ship, is built out of in the actual world. Since \(S'\) and \(O\) are clearly different ships i
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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