1,723,914 research outputs found
The agential fork : the hidden consequences of agency for plenitude in David Lewis' thesis of genuine modal realism
No full textIn this dissertation, I argue that David Lewis' abductive argument for Genuine Modal Realism (GMR) has the unwelcome, and hidden, implication of being unable to
accommodate agent causation theories of free will. This is because of his formulation of plenitude, which basically says that every way that a world or a part of a world could be is the way that some world, or part of some world is. This formulation tacitly assumes
that chance and nomological principles are sufficient to account for everything that happens at worlds. However, agent causation theories argue that free will is neither reducible to chance nor determined by physics. My argument recasts a fork argument made by Andrew Beedle. I proceed by arguing that chance-based principles evince an ontologically distinct kind of modality than agent causation principles. However,
plenitude only accounts for the physics/chance-based kind of modality. There is no similar principle of plenitude that can be given for agential modality that does not
collapse into the chance-based principle. But even if such a principle could be found, it would violate the doctrine in GMR that claims worlds are causally isolated. If no agential plenitude principle can be found and there is agential modality, then plenitude fails. If there is no agency at our world, and Lewis’ original formulation of plenitude is correct, then GMR implies no agency at any
world. This is the fork: If there is agency and GMR holds, then either plenitude fails, or isolation fails. But if there is no agency, and GMR holds, then there is no agency at any possible world. The latter prong is too strong a claim for an abductive argument like GMR. The
former proves that GMR cannot accommodate agent-causation theories. GMR loses its neutrality either way, to its detriment
Recommended from our members
David Lewis Lecture
No full textAngelika gives the prestigious David Lewis lecture at Princeton University on March 10, 2017
[David Lewis at Great Lakes Carbon Company]
No full textPhotograph of David Lewis posing with two individuals at Great Lakes Carbon company. The subjects are identified as Greta (left), David Lewis (center), and Mrs. Wilson (right). They pose inside of a lab with cinder block walls
Why Lewisians Should Love Deterministic Chance
No full textDavid Lewis claimed that deterministic chance was impossible. But deterministic chance seems ubiquitous in casinos, in statistical mechanics, and in evolutionary theory. It would be best for Lewis's metaphysics if, in spite of what he says, we could reconcile his core views with deterministic chance. In this chapter, the author briefly rebuts two Lewisian objections to deterministic chance. The first is that our world is indeterministic at the quantum level, and this lower‐level indeterminism translates to indeterminism at higher levels. The chapter explains how deterministic chances are possible on a broadly Lewisian theory. It also explains how there can be deterministic chances that function as nomological magnitudes, guide credence, and arise in objectively chancy situations. It is true that the author's deterministic chances are not time‐indexed. It is also true that they do not exactly satisfy principles, proposed by Lewis and others in a broadly Lewisian tradition, that presuppose time‐indexing.No Full Tex
David Lewis : la vie d'un philosophe
No full textUne biographie intellectuelle du philosophe David Lewis
David Lewis : la vie d'un philosophe
No full textUne biographie intellectuelle du philosophe David Lewis
Is really David Lewis a realist?
Full text linkParadoxically, concerning the structure of the world, David Lewis endorses a very nominalistic point of view, whereas he approaches possible worlds from an extreme realistic position. The aim of the present paper is exactly to analyze the relation between the ontology of actual world and the possible worlds ontology in the case of David Lewis, and to see whether or not this tension between the two irreconcilable positions is based on an inner contradiction in his philosoph
¿Es David Lewis realmente un realista?
No full textParadoxically, concerning the structure of the world, David Lewis endorses a very nominalistic point of view, whereas he approaches possible worlds from an extreme realistic position. The aim of the present paper is exactly to analyze the relation between the ontology of actual world and the possible worlds ontology in the case of David Lewis, and to see whether or not this tension between the two irreconcilable positions is based on an inner contradiction in his philosophy
On the Plurality of Lewis's Triviality Results
No full textDavid Lewis introduced a new kind of reductio ad absurdum style of argument: while the claims, suitably formalized, do not lead to outright contradiction, he showed they are tenable only in trivial ways. Lewis proved what are known as triviality results against the claims. The claims are "Probabilities of conditionals are conditional probabilities." "Desires are beliefs about what is good." The author argues that the tenuous connections between the claims go considerably further still: the claims give rise to debates that display a remarkably parallel structure. He brings out their many similarities to illuminate both of them, and to point the way to some promising avenues for future research. He displays structural similarities between the fluctuating fortunes of Stalnaker's Thesis, and those of Desire‐as‐Belief. Lewis concludes telegraphically by saying that Desire by Necessity is "a form of anti‐Humeanism, sure enough, but not the right form of anti‐Humeanism"; and that's it
Humility and constraints on O-language
Full text linkIn "Ramseyan Humility," David Lewis argues that we cannot know what the fundamental properties in our world are. His arguments invoke the possibility of permutations and replacements of fundamental properties. Most responses focus on Lewis’s view on the relationship between properties and roles, and on the assumptions about knowledge that he makes. I argue that no matter how the debates about knowledge and about the metaphysics of properties turn out, Lewis’s arguments are unconvincing since they rely on a highly implausible assumption about the expressive power of our language
- …
