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
    The full necessitism principle (Box-N) is invalid in KQML — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The full necessitism principle (Box-N) is invalid in KQML

    Modality & PossibilityPhilosophy of Language
    ?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.Box-N entails the principle N, which states that everything that exists is necessarily identical to something
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.N is invalid in KQML because world domains can vary across possible worlds
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If a principle entails an invalid formula, that principle is itself invalid
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.KQML is not the uniquely correct modal quantified logic; stronger systems like SQML with fixed domains make Box-N a logical truth.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The invalidity of Box-N in KQML reflects a modeling choice about domains, not a metaphysical discovery about necessity itself.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Williamson argues in 'Modal Logic as Metaphysics' that necessitism is defensible precisely by rejecting variable-domain semantics as metaphysically misleading.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The inference from 'N is invalid in KQML' to 'Box-N is metaphysically invalid' conflates formal invalidity with falsity, a category error.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A formula can be invalid in a given system yet true in all genuine metaphysical possibilities if that system underrepresents modal reality.
      ?

      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

    Philosophy of LanguageModality & Possibility

    Related

    A formula can be invalid in a given system yet true in all genuine metaphysical ...Box-N entails the principle N, which states that everything that exists is neces...If a principle entails an invalid formula, that principle is itself invalidKQML is not the uniquely correct modal quantified logic; stronger systems like S...
    +4 moreShow less
    N is invalid in KQML because world domains can vary across possible worldsThe inference from 'N is invalid in KQML' to 'Box-N is metaphysically invalid' c...The invalidity of Box-N in KQML reflects a modeling choice about domains, not a ...Williamson argues in 'Modal Logic as Metaphysics' that necessitism is defensible...

    Similar

    N_Q and the necessitist principle □N are equivalent in Q87%Q extended with the necessitist principle N_Q collapses into SQML84%Q is SQML minus its necessitism81%The full necessitation principle Nec is inapplicable to formulas conta...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: possibilism-actualism
    View source passageHide passage
    As we also saw in §3.3, CBF entails the principle N that everything (i.e., everything there happens to be) is necessarily identical to something. And, obviously, so too does the full necessitism principle \(\Box\textbf{N}\). But N is clearly invalid in KQML: because world domains can vary, an individual \(a\) in the actual world might not exist in another world, i.e., it might be that nothing is identical to \(a\) in some worlds.[52] Hence, since N is invalid in KQML, so are CBF and \(\Box\
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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