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
    SQML does not get the logical cart before the philosophic... — Carmelics
    Home/Modality & Possibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    SQML does not get the logical cart before the philosophical horse by building necessitism into its logical foundations.

    Modality & Possibility
    ?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.Necessitism is not merely a natural complement to possibilism but an essential component of it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Possibilism requires necessitism to preserve its central justification — that modal propositions have truthmakers grounded in the modal properties of individuals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.SQML's axiom schema ∀x□∃y(y=x) encodes necessitism as a theorem of the logical system, not a contingent metaphysical addition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When a metaphysical doctrine is derivable from the pure logic alone, that logic presupposes rather than remains neutral toward that doctrine.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williamson's own derivation in 'Modal Logic as Metaphysics' shows necessitism follows from SQML's quantifier rules, confirming it is built in foundationally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Free logic traditions (Lambert, Bencivenga) demonstrate that quantified modal systems can be constructed without existential import, making SQML's choice non-mandatory.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If an alternative logical framework avoiding necessitism is coherent and equally expressive, then SQML's entailment of necessitism reflects a substantive philosophical commitment, not logical neutrality.
      ?

      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

    Modality & Possibility

    Related

    Free logic traditions (Lambert, Bencivenga) demonstrate that quantified modal sy...If an alternative logical framework avoiding necessitism is coherent and equally...Necessitism is not merely a natural complement to possibilism but an essential c...Possibilism requires necessitism to preserve its central justification — that mo...
    +3 moreShow less
    SQML's axiom schema ∀x□∃y(y=x) encodes necessitism as a theorem of the logical s...When a metaphysical doctrine is derivable from the pure logic alone, that logic ...Williamson's own derivation in 'Modal Logic as Metaphysics' shows necessitism fo...

    Similar

    The Tractatus view that all necessities are logical necessities is wro...84%N_Q and the necessitist principle □N are equivalent in Q79%Q is SQML minus its necessitism78%Leibniz is not a necessitarian in his mature philosophy78%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    Although it is a logical truth of SQML, necessitism is not analytically entailed by possibilism. There is, in particular, nothing in the idea of a mere possibile that demands its necessity, nothing that rules out worlds from which it might be altogether absent, worlds (in addition to those in which it is either concrete or non-concrete) in which nothing is identical to it. This might lead one to wonder whether SQML, by building necessitism into its logical foundations, has (from a possibilist pe
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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