The Same but Different

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;117758 wrote:

In other words, the word "world" is being used metaphorically. It is, after all, just a manner of speaking.

[INDENT]metaphor (countable and uncountable; plural metaphors)

(uncountable) (rhetoric) The use of a word or phrase to refer to something that it isn't, invoking a direct similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described, and in the case of English without the words "like" or "as".
(countable) The word or phrase used in this way. An implied comparison.

[/INDENT](From Wiktionary)

PWS doesn't seem to fall under the definition of "metaphor". Rather the usage of "world" in uncommon, even odd, but it doesn't seem like a metaphor to me. It is also non-literal.

@Emil,

Emil;117742 wrote:

You may want to recall what a possible world is. It is merely a consistent set of propositions, not a world as in how we ordinarily use the word "world". I am not a modal realist like David Lewis.

So, why did you disagree with fast. That is what he said. Modal realism is just a case of the fallacy of reification.

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117768 wrote:

So, why did you disagree with fast. That is what he said. Modal realism is just a case of the fallacy of reification.

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He said it was a metaphor. Given the definition of "metaphor" I disthink that is the case.

@Emil,

Emil;117777 wrote:

He said it was a metaphor. Given the definition of "metaphor" I disthink that is the case.

Fast can defend himself. But I just think he meant that it was not literally truth that there were possible worlds other than the actual one. The term "metaphor" sometimes is the denial of "literal".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117779 wrote:

Fast can defend himself. But I just think he meant that it was not literally truth that there were possible worlds other than the actual one. The term "metaphor" sometimes is the denial of "literal".

OK. I think that it is a non-literal/special meaning of "world".

Wouldn't these 'possible worlds' just be other actual worlds? And that seems confused, unless some special definition of "world" is applied again.

@Emil,

Emil;117780 wrote:

Wouldn't these 'possible worlds' just be other actual worlds? .

Why? .....................

@Emil,

Emil;117765 wrote:

[INDENT]metaphor (countable and uncountable; plural metaphors)

(uncountable) (rhetoric) The use of a word or phrase to refer to something that it isn't, invoking a direct similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described, and in the case of English without the words "like" or "as".

(countable) The word or phrase used in this way. An implied comparison.

[/INDENT](From Wiktionary)

PWS doesn't seem to fall under the definition of "metaphor". Rather the usage of "world" in uncommon, even odd, but it doesn't seem like a metaphor to me. It is also non-literal.

It is a metaphor, by the definition you quoted. The phrase, "possible world" is used to describe a possible scenario, which is like there being another world in which it is the case.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;117784 wrote:

It is a metaphor, by the definition you quoted. The phrase, "possible world" is used to describe a possible scenario, which is like there being another world in which it is the case.

To say that some proposition, p, is true in some possible world is just to say that p might be true, but isn't.

@Emil,

[QUOTE=Emil;117421]The two sentences in your example have the same referents, but they do not mean the same. You can see this by making up a possible scenario where they differ in referents. That's your exercise for tomorrow. :p [/QUOTE]AT YOUR SERVICE!:

Sentence number 1: "Sandy bit Charlie."
Sentence number 2: "The girl with the red hair sunk her teeth down into the guy with square glasses."

Scenario number 1: During Christmas day in South Carolina, Sandy Brown bit Charlie Brown.
Scenario number 2: During New Years day in South Carolina, Sandy Jones bit Charlie Jones.

Eyewitness number 1 (from scenario number 1), Adam, uttered sentence number 1.
Eyewitness number 2 (from scenario number 1), Eve, uttered sentence number 2.

Eyewitness number 1 (from scenario number 2), Samson, uttered sentence number 1.
Eyewitness number 2 (from scenario number 2), Delilah, uttered sentence number 2.

Although Adam and Samson utter the very same sentence, what is expressed by Adam is not the same as what is expressed by Samson. The proposition expressed by Adam is that Sandy Brown bit Charlie Brown. The proposition expressed by Samson is that Sandy Jones bit Charlie Jones.

Notice that even in the same scenario, both Adam and Eve utter two completely different sentences, but the cop that took their statements down didn't have a problem realizing they both concur about what happened, so neither should we.

What we can learn from this is that knowing the sentence doesn't imply knowing the proposition. In other words, knowing what the sentence is; hence, knowing the words in the sentence and what order they're in, does not therefore put us in a position to know what the proposition is. The context, along with the sentence, is what helps me to figure out what is being expressed (what is meant) by the uttered sentence. That's how come I am able to conclude that two different sentences can express the very same proposition, and that's how come I am able to conclude that two identical sentences can express very different propositions.

PS: I still don't know what the referent of a sentence is.
---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 02:35 PM ----------

[QUOTE=kennethamy;117786]To say that some proposition, p, is true in some possible world is just to say that p might be true, but isn't.[/quote]
Hmmm. My conception is slightly different (and in two ways).

I would interpret one telling me that p is true in some possible world to mean that p is logically possible. One, that doesn't imply that p may be true, but it doesn't exclude it either. I can jump a three-foot fence from a standing position, or at least I may be able to. It's not too far-fetched. I may be able to do it in some possible world. So, not only might it be the case, but it may be the case as well. Hence, not only is it possible but probable as well.

You said, "but isn't." Well, if that possible world talk doesn't leave room that something is the case, then it's no-brainer that it doesn't leave room that something may be the case, but I'm not sure why you're interpreting it that way.

Actuality implies possibility, and possibility doesn't imply actuality, but possibility doesn't exclude actuality either. It's logically possible that I am in South Carolina, and it's actually true. In some possible world, I am in SC is true.

ETA: In some possible world, I am in SC is true, unless, "In some possible world" is short for "in some other possible world"-in which case, I am mistaken.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117786 wrote:

To say that some proposition, p, is true in some possible world is just to say that p might be true, but isn't.

You are wrong. To say that something is true is some possible world does not imply that it isn't true in this world. Though it could sometimes be misleading. You seem to have confused implication with implicature.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 10:16 PM ----------

kennethamy;117782 wrote:

Why? .....................

What else would "there are other possible worlds" mean if not that there is more than one world? There being more than one world is incoherent or using another definition of "world" than the usual one.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 10:17 PM ----------

Pyrrho;117784 wrote:

It is a metaphor, by the definition you quoted. The phrase, "possible world" is used to describe a possible scenario, which is like there being another world in which it is the case.

Well. I didn't use it like that, but I agree that it can be used like that.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 10:21 PM ----------

fast wrote:

PS: I still don't know what the referent of a sentence is.

I said "referents" plural. It was just a way of saying "the referents of the terms that are part of the sentence".

@Emil,

Emil;117892 wrote:

You are wrong. To say that something is true is some possible world does not imply that it isn't true in this world. Though it could sometimes be misleading. You seem to have confused implication with implicature.

---------- Post added 01-06-2010 at 10:16 PM ----------

.

Yes. The actual world is a possible world. But only with that exception.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;117900 wrote:

Yes. The actual world is a possible world. But only with that exception.

Because otherwise, why would you need to use a possible world example, if you could just use an actual world example?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117904 wrote:

Because otherwise, why would you need to use a possible world example, if you could just use an actual world example?

It is easier to find logically possible examples, I can simply make them up. I can't do that with actual examples. And since they work equally well for counter-examples to logical implication, indeed actual examples work because they imply possible examples [(∀P)(P⇒◊P)], then it is easier to use logically possible examples.

@Emil,

Emil;117915 wrote:

It is easier to find logically possible examples, I can simply make them up. I can't do that with actual examples. And since they work equally well for counter-examples to logical implication, indeed actual examples work because they imply possible examples [(∀P)(P⇒◊P)], then it is easier to use logically possible examples.

Yes, but all possible examples do not imply actual examples, do they?

You're right, though, actual examples imply possible examples. I suppose I meant to say: Why start an argument off by saying, "Consider a possible world...", if it were something we could consider in the actual world? In other words, don't people use possible world examples when they can't use actual world examples in their argument? The person, for instance, would be trying to prove that something is logically possible, even if it violates something in this actual world.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;117917 wrote:

Yes, but all possible examples do not imply actual examples, do they?

You're right, though, actual examples imply possible examples. I suppose I meant to say: Why start an argument off by saying, "Consider a possible world...", if it were something we could consider in the actual world? In other words, don't people use possible world examples when they can't use actual world examples in their argument? The person, for instance, would be trying to prove that something is logically possible, even if it violates something in this actual world.

No possible examples imply an actual example, I think.

If the target is a logical implication then finding just a single possible exception is enough to disprove it. As I said, it is easier to find logically possible examples. Why "kill birds with a cannon"? Smile

Though that there is an actual example of something proves without a doubt that it is possible. But describing a seemingly consistent situation still leaves some doubt; we could have missed the contradiction.

Philosophy Forum

The Same but Different

Quick Links

My Account

able2know