When this world was created at singularity (big bang/god) it was perhaps only one of the universes that came into being. That is as probable as this being the only world. (universe)
or - if god exists then he could have two world and they would be separated and unaware of each other.
it is impossible to prove that this world exists.
There might be another world hidden within this one or a few minutes behind this world.
Any world has to have logical laws and mechanisms - but how could we recognise those? How could that world understand our world.
What is meant by another possible world? Why do we have to consider it?
1. It is a way of examining our own possible world.
2. It is a way of thinking about the ways we recognise our own world.
3. If a thing happens in this world - does it have to happen in another world?
4. Do I exist in this other world? If so, am I the same I? And how do I define who that person might be? Who am I ? And what am I? Am I pure mind or corporeal as well?
If there was a world where beings only had consciousness - would that world have colour or sound? They would not have had to develop those senses in a colourless soundless world - we are adapted for this particular world.
Would its inhabitants have sensory powers- and without them could they live in a world without nutrition and water? If they existed only in the realm of thought and telepathy they could not be free - they would know immediately what each "individual" was thinking. They could not lie, they would believe the same thing? Perhaps not? They could not produce art or literature without limbs. Would they die?
If the inhabitants only had senses - no mind or memory - they would live for the moment. No history, no art, no literature. They might have no concept of death.
These contrast with out own world where in our human condition we have the power to "think" - ie use our conscious minds to deal with abstract thoughts as well as material matters, but also have the senses and can enjoy the richness of our planet - its colours its sounds etc. etc.
I think thats the basis for an outline - now to deal with some of the philosophical arguments, and try to understand them!!
As far as I can see, any of the main theories concerning the nature of possible worlds can be applied equally to impossible worlds: they are existent nonactual entities; they are nonexistent objects; they are constructions out of properties and other universals; they are just certain sets of sentences. … There is, as far as I can see, absolutely no cogent (in particular, non-question-begging) reason to suppose that there is an ontological difference between merely possible and impossible worlds. (Priest 1997b: 580–1) quoted SEP Berto on Impossible worlds
A more moderate option treats impossible worlds as ersatz constructions, abstract entities on a par with ersatz possible worlds (see e.g. Mares 1997, Vander Laan 1997). This option embeds various sub-options, for modal ersatzism comes in various shapes. If one takes possible worlds as maximally consistent sets of propositions (as per Adams 1974), impossible worlds could be sets of propositions that are occasionally inconsistent and/or incomplete. Similarly, Plantingan ersatzism (worlds are states of affairs) or Stalnakerian ersatzism (worlds are world-natures or maximal properties) could be easily extended to impossible worlds; and all hands agree that such worlds come at no great ontological or theoretical cost, once one has accepted ersatz possible worlds. After all, ersatz worlds are abstract: they account for impossibilities, not by instantiating them, but by representing them in some way or other. The extension is particularly straightforward for linguistic ersatzism: possible worlds are world-books, maximal-complete stories, that is, sets of sentences of a “worldmaking” language (Carnap's state-descriptions, Jeffrey's complete consistent novels, etc.); and it is easy to admit impossible worlds of the same kind, that is, world-books which are occasionally inconsistent (and, say, incomplete).
More later.
Also - the difference between things that have never been true and those that might have been true those that might have been false or that could not have been true (had to be false)Metaphysics - SEP
If I am right handed in this universe but left handed in another is that possible?
No comments:
Post a Comment