The failure of substitution in Fine's example reflects an independently motivated restriction on which necessities are 'metaphysically revelatory', not a syntactic opacity irreducible to possible-worlds semantics.

?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.

Fine's example(refers to a particular philosophical illustration): A specific thought experiment or case created by philosopher Kit Fine to illustrate a philosophical point about how language and meaning work.
Necessities (or necessary truths)(refers to truths that can't be otherwise): Statements that must be true in any possible situation—like 'all bachelors are unmarried'—as opposed to facts that happen to be true in our world.
Possible-worlds semantics(another addition to formal logic): A way of thinking about meaning by imagining all the different ways the world could be, and checking if a statement is true in some or all of those scenarios.
Substitution (in logic/philosophy)(the action of replacing ideas i_k and i_m with other concepts): Replacing one idea or term with another, like swapping out one word for a synonym in a sentence.

Based on where you are in your exploration