## Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

Philosophical, mathematical and computational logic, linguistics, formal argument, game theory, fallacies, paradoxes, puzzles and other related issues.

### Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

Question: I was nearly late for work. I got to work and the building was closed, then I remember that there are no classes this afternoon. Was I nearly late for work or not? If I got there are classes were cancelled would that change your answer?

Just curious how this fits into modal logic and if its a particular "example" of a part of modal logic or just two separate cases?

Resident Member

Posts: 5368
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

You might want to check out Counterpart theory - "as formulated by Lewis, requires that individuals exist in only one world. The standard account of possible worlds assumes that a modal statement about an individual (e.g., "it is possible that x is y") means that there is a possible world, W, where the individual x has the property y; in this case there is only one individual, x, at issue. On the contrary, counterpart theory supposes that this statement is really saying that there is a possible world, W, wherein exists an individual that is not x itself, but rather a distinct individual 'x' different from but nonetheless similar to x. "

Member

Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jun 2017

### Re: Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

BadgerJelly » Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:14 pm wrote:Question: I was nearly late for work. I got to work and the building was closed, then I remember that there are no classes this afternoon. Was I nearly late for work or not? If I got there are classes were cancelled would that change your answer?

Just curious how this fits into modal logic and if its a particular "example" of a part of modal logic or just two separate cases?
I think it is a brilliant way to sidestep the issue that you are disorganised and erratic. :)
Eclogite
Forum Moderator

Posts: 1388
Joined: 07 Feb 2007

### Re: Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

There's a good article in SEP on the problem of accidental intrinsics - Transworld Identity

Member

Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jun 2017

### Re: Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

Sivad » August 19th, 2017, 10:51 pm wrote:There's a good article in SEP on the problem of accidental intrinsics - Transworld Identity

Ah! I knew I wasn't mad ... completely! I am damn sure I stumbled across that term looking for stuff on Kripke or maybe someone rattled it off (was it you) on another thread briefly?

I'll take gander. Thanks :)

Resident Member

Posts: 5368
Joined: 14 Mar 2012

### Re: Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

Hey I'm happy to find a fellow traveler, most people just aren't interested in this stuff. There's actually a funny YT clip I came across of Paul Churchland telling a bunch of philosophers how stupid Kripke semantics is, it's pretty funny. Obviously that doesn't settle the question but it does illustrate how contentious philosophy can be. I'll find it and post it.

Member

Posts: 217
Joined: 11 Jun 2017

### Re: Does this refer to a particular kind of Modal Logic

Paul Churchland on Kripkean Semantics

This is from a whole conference on “Problems of consciousness and free will in analytic philosophy” that featured quite a few prominent philosophers. You can view the whole series @ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCei3l9jF1JnpuGp9ok855pg/videos Just scroll through and you'll find the Greenland boat conference.

From the website: "A conference on “Problems of consciousness and free will in analytic philosophy” was held in Greenland from 12 to 19 June. It was attended by such well-known figures in contemporary philosophy of mind and cognitive science as Daniel Dennett, David Chalmers, Paul and Patricia Churchland, Derk Pereboom, Jesse Prinz, Nicholas Humphrey, Andy Clark, and Keith Frankish, as well as by teachers, students, and graduates of the Faculty of Philosophy of Lomonosov Moscow State University: Anna Kostikova, Robert Howell, Dmitry Volkov, Eugene Loginov, Maria Ananina, Angelina Dmitrieva, Andrew Mertsalov, Mikhail Terekhov, Artem Besedin, and Anton Kuznetsov.

The conference was notable not only for the unique assembly of keynote speakers, but also for its unusual format: it was held on board the sailing schooner Rembrandt van Rijn as that ship cruised along the southeastern coast of Greenland. It was a real philosophical expedition: discussion sessions were followed by landings at remote points in Greenland and by walks and Zodiac boat trips that made the participants familiar with the nature of arctic Greenland. All sessions were held in the wardroom of the ship. A distinctive feature of the conference program was that the speakers did not represent their own views, as is usually done. Instead, they made presentations about their colleagues’ ideas, in the process formulating both main points of disagreement and the arguments of critics. For example, David Chalmers represented Andy Clark and Andy Clark represented Nicholas Humphrey. After the reports, the persons whose work was reported on then took the floor, commenting and clarifying their positions and responding to criticism."