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 Possibilism, defended by Kripke and others, holds that merely possible and future entities have genuine ontological status as possible objects.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Possibilism inflates ontology without empirical evidence; Occam's Razor favors analyzing modality through actual-world linguistic conventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If merely possible objects exist, their properties become indeterminate; we cannot specify how many possible cats have exactly seven whiskers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Actualism explains counterfactuals equally well via abstract propositions or fictional frameworks, avoiding commitment to impossible entities.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Counterfactual statements about non-actual scenarios require truth-makers; possible objects provide the needed ontological ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Modal logic's formal validity across systems suggests possible worlds and objects have genuine structure, not mere conceptual convenience.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.We meaningfully quantify over possibilities in science and mathematics; ontological commitment to possibilia best explains this practice.
      ?

      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.