Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 2:45pm

Also, from wikipedia: 

From this groundwork, the theory of possible worlds became a central part of many philosophical developments, from the 1960s onwards – including, most famously, the analysis ofcounterfactual conditionals in terms of "nearby possible worlds" developed by David Lewis and Robert Stalnaker. On this analysis, when we discuss what would have happened if some set of conditions were the case, the truth of our claims is determined by what is true at the nearest possible world (or the set of nearest possible worlds) where the conditions obtain. (A possible world W₁ is said to be near to another possible world W₂ in respect of R to the degree that the same things happen in W₁ and W₂ in respect of R; the more different what happens in two possible worlds in a certain respect, the "further" they are from one another in that respect.) Consider this conditional sentence: "If George W. Bush hadn't become president of the U.S. in 2001, Al Gore would have." The sentence would be taken to express a claim that could be reformulated as follows: "In all nearest worlds to our actual world (nearest in relevant respects) where George W. Bush didn't become president of the U.S. in 2001, Al Gore became president of the U.S. then instead." And on this interpretation of the sentence, if there is some nearest world to the actual world (nearest in relevant respects) where George W. Bush didn't become president but Al Gore didn't either, then the claim expressed by this counterfactual would be false.

Today, possible worlds play a central role in many debates in philosophy, including especially debates over the Zombie Argument, and physicalism and supervenience in the philosophy of mind. Many debates in the philosophy of religion have been reawakened by the use of possible worlds. Intense debate has also emerged over the ontological status of possible worlds, provoked especially by David Lewis's defense of modal realism, the doctrine that talk about "possible worlds" is best explained in terms of innumerable, really existing worlds beyond the one we live in. The fundamental question here is: given that modal logic works, and that some possible-worlds semantics for modal logic is correct, what has to be true of the world, and just what are these possible worlds that we range over in our interpretation of modal statements? Lewis argued that what we range over are real, concrete worlds that exist just as unequivocally as our actual world exists, but that are distinguished from the actual world simply by standing in no spatial, temporal, or causal relations with the actual world. (On Lewis's account, the only "special" property that the actual world has is a relational one: that we are in it. This doctrine is called "the indexicality of actuality": "actual" is a merely indexical term, like "now" and "here".) Others, such as Robert Adams and William Lycan, reject Lewis's picture as metaphysically extravagant, and suggest in its place an interpretation of possible worlds as consistent, maximally complete sets of descriptions of or propositions about the world, so that a "possible world" is conceived of as a complete description of a way the world could be – rather than a world that is that way. (Lewis describes their position, and similar positions such as those advocated by Alvin Plantinga and Peter Forrest, as "ersatz modal realism", arguing that such theories try to get the benefits of possible worlds semantics for modal logic "on the cheap", but that they ultimately fail to provide an adequate explanation.)Saul Kripke, in Naming and Necessity, took explicit issue with Lewis's use of possible worlds semantics, and defended a stipulative account of possible worlds as purely formal (logical) entities rather than either really existent worlds or as some set of propositions or descriptions.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on December 23, 2011 at 2:56pm

[Thanks Greg for suggesting a few introductory books on modal logic. I am getting convinced that it'll be a good thing if I am to gain some basic understanding of this stuff.]

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 23, 2011 at 2:58pm

Seconded! I'm going to do some additional reading too.

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 4:06pm

cheers my friend.

Permalink Reply by Greg Gorey on December 23, 2011 at 4:06pm

Where have you heard it in academia? Show me the source. From what I can tell you just openly dismissed what I pasted for no reason without argument. 

Appealing to authority is not a fallacy. Appealing to illegitimate authority is. Human beings have to appeal to authority everytime they go to the doctor or get their car worked on. Without authority to appeal to, society would crumble. A creationist could retort to you saying that evolution was true is a logical fallacy because you yourself are not a biologist and are appealing to the work of scholars.  If you tried to link them to info they could just dismiss that info out of hand.

Also I find your "appeal to knowledge" curious. Dictionary.com defines knowledge as:

"acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from studyor investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject orbranch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessaryfor the job."

are you suggesting that we have this conversation devoid of facts and investigation?

Permalink Reply by Tex on December 23, 2011 at 11:05am

WTF, I gotta lay down after reading that...lol.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick on December 23, 2011 at 11:22am

Simply reasoning something into existence without any credible evidence to support that claim (notice I didn’t say no evidence, because there’s plenty of poor “evidence” that gets thrown around) doesn’t make it believable. So, your friend has come to the conclusion, through the use of logic, that such a being does exist. I’d say fine, for the sake of argument, concede the point and ask him to present evidence that supports its existence. This argument alone isn’t proof of existence any more than your counter argument is proof of non-existence. Perhaps you should remind him that most atheists accept the (remote)possibility that some god may exist, but in the absence of convincing/credible evidence, have no reason to believe it.

The type of argument/ discussion you’re engaged in with your friend always seem like a pointless exercise in mental masturbation. Personally, I think the physical act is a more worthwhile pursuit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 23, 2011 at 4:20pm

Replying to Kir's post here.

several of your posts seem to start with straw men arguments about my motive or purpose in my posts.

Well then that's a problem Kir for a couple of reasons. First, never once did I comment on your motive or the purpose of your post, only the quality of your critique vis a vis the argument in question and modal logic. Second, you can't strawman a motive or the purpose of a post. The strawman fallacy is the informal logical fallacy committed when someone attacks an argument their opponent is not making.

It takes the form:

• Person A has position X.
• Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
• Person B attacks position Y.
• Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Nowhere have I done this.

And I think you are veering off topic again.

It has been experience when reading your posts that you use this as a canard to deflect criticism of your position. If someone critiques your position, you ignore the critique and simply insist that it isn't on the topic. Of course I may be absolutely wrong but even if I am, this is neverthelss the appearance it has.

But anyway, there could be no more important topic than what I'm discussing. The argument is the MODAL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT. And yet you are critiquing the argument as if it is not referring to modalities but actual worlds. You fundamentally misunderstand the argument. You fundamentally lack the understanding of modal logic to be able to understand not only that your critique is without merit but even what those who are pointing out that your critique is without merit are even talking about. There is no more "on topic" a topic to discuss than this.

This was being made with respect to the existence of a god, or at least that is the presumed context of this discussion and it is, in fact, the words used in the statement ("maximally great being").  You are appealing to “modal logic” without also appealing, as you must, to reality.

LOL. See! This is what I mean! I'm not "appealing to 'modal logic'". The argument IS the Modal Ontological Argument.

Sigh. Let's go all the way to beginning with an examination of the argument in the most simple terms.

The argument says: ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE POSSIBLE WORLDS OTHER THAN THE ACTUAL WORLD (NOT that there ARE other actual worlds, only that there ARE OTHER POSSIBLE WORLDS, that ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A MAXIMALLY GREAT BEING IS LOGICALLY POSSIBLE (i.e. there is nothing LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE about such a being defined ONLY as a maximally great being), then that being exists in SOME POSSIBLE WORLD.

Now, let's make sure that we can agree that, if you flip a coin an infinite number of times, you will at some point go on a run of 1,000 (or a million or a billion, etc.) heads in a row. Assuming you're able to accept this simple implication of probabilities (that given enough time and trials, even the most infinitesimal probabilities will converge on 1 [obtain]), then if you have an infinite number of possible worlds (and it's easy to see that you do given the infinite number of ways that a possible world could vary from one to the next), and you have a being that is logically possible (meaning there is nothing logically impossible about said being), and since there's nothing logically impossible about a maximally great being, then this being exists in some possible world just like you're going to get 1,000 heads in a row given enough trials.

First let's have you agree on that. Once you can understand this you can then critique the argument on the argument's terms as a Modal Ontological argument. Otherwise, as I continue to say, you're critique has no merit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nelson on December 23, 2011 at 6:24pm

Alright. It's totally evident that it's useless to discuss this with you. LOL.

We're talking about the Modal Ontological Argument. If you're interested in discussing something different then you should do that elsewhere. But if you're interested in discussing the argument in question or modal logic in general then I urge you to do so. But first you'll have to understand at least a modicum of modal logic in order to bring a critique that has a hope of making sense. Otherwise you're out in the weeds just lobbing word salad at the wall in the hopes of making philosophical-sounding language come off as profound enough that no one notices that it says absolutely nothing against the argument. Trouble is, there are many of us here that aren't your typical someones; we know enough to notice. And so the only thing left to you is to repeat "Off topic!" like it's a mantra.

I've tried to help you understand Kir. There's only so much obscurantism a person can take, however. So...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 23, 2011 at 7:04pm

Problem with "every possible world": one absolutely possible world would be one which is totally bereft of life of any sort, physical OR spiritual. I think that ***ks up the argument pretty badly right there.

Also, one perpetual problem with all ontological arguments is that whatever that being is is God. Now, is that Jehovah or Allah or Krishna or Ahura Mazda? You see, this is what renders the ontological argument unmoving for so many people, who don't want to be convinced that SOME deity exists, but that THEIR deity exists. That is one thing the ontological argument fails to do miserably.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on December 23, 2011 at 7:14pm

You see, this is what renders the ontological argument unmoving for so many people, who don't want to be convinced that SOME deity exists, but that THEIR deity exists.

True, but it's an important step.  First prove there is *a* god, then prove that God is whichever one you prefer.  William Lane Craig (I know, bad example) does this: ontological argument to prove there is a god, then uses the "evidence" of Jesus' resurrection to "prove" it's the Christian God.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 23, 2011 at 7:22pm

Yeah, but like I said, "one absolutely possible world would be one which is totally bereft of life of any sort, physical OR spiritual." The argument falls flat on its face right there.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page