Advertisement

Spread Worlds, Plenitude and Modal Realism: A Problem for David Lewis

  • Charles R. Pigden
  • Rebecca E. B. Entwisle
Chapter
Part of the Studies in History and Philosophy of Science book series (AUST, volume 28)

Abstract

In his metaphysical summa of 1986, The Plurality of Worlds, David Lewis famously defends a doctrine he calls ‘modal realism’, the idea that to account for the fact that some things are possible and some things are necessary we must postulate an infinity possible worlds, concrete entities like our own universe, but cut off from us in space and time. Possible worlds are required to account for the facts of modality without assuming that modality is primitive – that there are irreducibly modal facts. We argue that on one reading, Lewis’s theory licenses us to assume maverick possible worlds which spread through logical space gobbling up all the rest. Because they exclude alternatives, these worlds result in contradictions, since different spread worlds are incompatible with one another. Plainly Lewis’s theory must be amended to exclude these excluders. But, we maintain, this cannot be done without bringing in modal primitives. And once we admit modal primitives, bang goes the rationale for Lewis’s modal realism.

Keywords

Modal Property Logical Space Modal Realism Dispositional Property Consistent Describability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Armstrong, D.M. 1989. A combinatorial theory of possibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Boolos, G. 1985. Nominalistic platonism. Philosophical Review 94: 327–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Franklin, James. 1986. Are dispositions reducible to categorical properties? The Philosophical Quarterly 36: 62–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haack, S. 1978. Philosophy of logics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Lewis, D.K. 1966. An argument for the identity theory. Journal of Philosophy 63(1): 17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lewis, D.K. 1968. Counterpart theory and quantified modal logic. Journal of Philosophy 65: 113–126. Reprinted in Lewis, D.K. 1983. Philosophical papers, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Lewis, D.K. 1970. Anselm and actuality. Nous 4: 175–188. Reprinted in Lewis, D.K. 1983. Philosophical papers, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Lewis, D.K. 1983. Philosophical papers, vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Lewis, D.K. 1986. On the plurality of worlds. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis, D.K. 1991. Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Luther, M. 1525/1957. On the bondage of the will. Trans. J.I. Packer and O.R. Johnston. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co.Google Scholar
  12. Lycan, W.G. 1979. The trouble with possible worlds. In The possible and the actual, ed. M.J. Loux, 274–316. Ithaca: Cornell.Google Scholar
  13. Lycan, W.G. 1988. Review of the plurality of worlds. Journal of Philosophy 85(1): 42–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mackie, J.L. 1982. The miracle of theism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Miller, R.B. 1989. Dog bites man: A defence of modal realism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67(4): 476–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pigden, C.R. 1989. Logic and the autonomy of ethics. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 67(2): 127–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pigden, C.R. 1990. Ought-implies-can: Luther. Erasmus and R.M. Hare. Sophia 29: 2–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Plantinga, A. 1974. The nature of necessity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Plantinga, A. 1987. Two concepts of modality: Modal realism and modal reductionism. In Philosophical perspectives, Metaphysics, vol. 1, ed. J. Tomberlin, 189–231. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
  20. Quine, W.V.O. 1961. From a logical point of view, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations