Are possible worlds real?1. Yes possible worlds are real concrete states of affairs that exist independently of the actual world.2. Yes possible worlds are real abstract objects that exist like numbers or morals and our world is the concrete instantiation of the actual world.3. No possible worlds are helpful semantic fictions that allow us to talk about ways the world could be under a different set of circumstances.
2 is true, 1 is schizophrenia, 3 is substantially indistinct from 2
>>18281018>3 is substantially indistinct from 2Not quite as typically philosophers who advocate number 2 are committed to essentialism (the idea that objects have real essences to them, perhaps contained in information about them as in their names) while those who advocate for number 3 may not find themselves committed to such an approach.
>>18281031Yes but I would say this speaks to the basic incoherence of nominalism rather than a real difference between them.
>>18281034I will only say that neither essentialism nor descriptivism are exclusively with or against either position, only that they naturally lead one to these positions (or vice versa). Still, ultimately 2 advocates for viewing possible worlds as real abstracts, even in a Platonist sense, while 3 would not hold this. Plantinga argues that possible worlds can be thought of in terms of a set of maximally consistent propositions, where each world contains information about its own possibility and about the possibility of other worlds, including our world. Since our world is a possible world, it too entails propositions about other possible worlds (including itself), it's just that, our world, the actual world, is concretely instantiated. Our world is the actual world, but every possible world is an actual world relative to itself, and since being actual and existing are synonymous, then to be actual means to exist. But that doesn't mean our world isn't special. It is special because it is concrete, while other possible worlds are abstract.
>>18281011"abstract" objects are patterns of physical materia organized in a specific way that get noticed and understood as such patterns inside the neurons of our brainpossible words are most probably not real, no
>>18281011MWI of quantum mechanics is true and all possible worlds are actual worlds. However, most things people call "possible worlds" are impossible worlds.
>>18281576Is there a possible world where Socrates is an alligator?
>>18281667How could you possibly infer that?
>>18281666Obviously not. Hence>However, most things people call "possible worlds" are impossible worlds.
>>18281668Infer there's only 1 world? Easy, just look around and tell me if you see more.
>>18281011>are made up imaginary worlds actually real???
Yes.Why does anything exist at all? Why should anything exist? There is no apparent reason it should, yet it does, so clearly we are missing something.It follows that we need to refine our question. Why does the universe exist with our specific laws of physics, all the way down to our laws of logic, with us as conscious being waltzing around inside it? There is no apparent reason it should be like this in particular. There is no reason why there is gravity, no reason why 2+2 should equal 4 or the universe should even follow concepts like mathematics and logic. Again, we might be missing something, but we are not totally ignorant either, there is at least some level of reason behind our inquiries and some possibility that our conclusions are true.While metaphysics lacks scientific evidence, science itself of course is another philosophy, yet we accept it. Though if we are to imagine universes do not need to follow logic, it follows our very reasoning does not apply to these other universes, regardless our laws of logic do seem to correlate strongly with our own universe, which is at least something to go on.Infinite worlds in infinite variations is thus the most suitable answer. We will never be 100% sure of it, just like we will never be 100% sure any scientific theory is correct. Despite the overwhelming evidence yielded by 18th century experiments it was eventually proven that classical physics is not entirely accurate, for example.Infinite universes explains why our universe exists despite there being no particular reason why it should be this way with our specific laws of physics and following logic, with us as conscious beings experiencing qualia and understanding our thoughts, as I hope you understand these thoughts. It is like classical physics, for the time being it is a sufficient explanation.
>>18281719>people don't know why the universe exists>therefore it's likely that an infinite amount of universes exist
>>18281011I think there is only one "frame reference for material reality" so only one "possible world" is being instantiated at any particular time but reincarnation/eternal return is likely real so to some extent your question could depend on whether you view "the past" as a "real concrete state of affairs that exist independently from the actual world" because some "possible worlds" probably genuinely happened in previous iterations of "the loop" so that arguably makes them more "real" than "possible worlds" that didn't happen but could. I don't believe that even God is "omniscient" in the sense that he only knows what he will do not what "limited free will entities" will do so you basically have "possible world that exists right now", "possible world that existed in the past", "possible world that could exist in the future (but no one can necessarily know even god)", "technically possible world that will never exist either because God won't allow it or because the loop will be broken/reality will be altered enough to make it impossible/the frame of reference will change to something else that makes that 'possible world' obsolete" but again God wouldn't necessarily know when the loop will break or when reality will change or when the frame of reference will change if those things will happen as a result of the actions of the "limited free will being"
>>18281011>Yes possible worlds are real abstract objects that exist like numbers or morals and our world is the concrete instantiation of the actual world.Basically, the Kripkian view.>>18281031No, they arn't.>>18281724More like 1. Book, 16 theorem from Spinoza's ethics.
>>18281758You just believe in a Nietzschean eternal return, in which any combination of atomes appear at least one time.
>>18281809>read this five-hundred year old philosophical treatise by an archaic jewish thaumaturge to learn why made up imaginary worlds which we all clearly understand to be made up... are actually realNo thanks.
>>18281864Kek,Dude, I provide you a actual source. You could even ask grok or GoogleAI or just a search engine. If this is too much for you, you're retarded.And I do not say that "imagine worlds are real".In my opinion, "possible worlds" are sets of descriptions of the actual world that differ. For example, in this world, Trump is president, but we can clearly state that, at some point, it was possible for somebody else to become president.With this trick, we can say something like "x is necessary" or "y is possible" in a meaningful way.If you deny the validity of modal logic, e.g.because you're a adapt of a deterministic materialistm, you cannot overlook the role that possible worlds play in contexts like Kripke semantics, which are important for analyzing the structure of logical systems, including the logic of provability and similar frameworks.Possible worlds exist in the same ways as prime numbers. They are abstractions. They are not objects like a stone or a human body.
>>18281873>Possible worlds exist in the same ways as prime numbers. They are abstractions.So they don't actually exist.
>>18281879Would you state prime numbers doesn't exist?
>>18281887Yes.
>>18281011How is this different from what theists claim?
>>18282054Because theism is retarded but possible worlds is not because professional philosophy teaches about it. Most serious philosophers don't believe in bronze age sky fairies lol
ok
>>18281018fpbp
