2016
DOI: 10.1007/s10992-015-9389-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Problem of Cross-world Predication

Abstract: While standard first-order modal logic is quite powerful, it cannot express even very simple sentences like "I could have been taller than I actually am" or "Everyone could have been smarter than they actually are". These are examples of cross-world predication, whereby objects in one world are related to (sometimes the same) objects in another world. Extending first-order modal logic to allow for crossworld predication in a motivated way has proven to be notoriously difficult. In this paper, I argue that the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our appeal to modal comparisons in this informal introductory section is intended merely to isolate our target notion of actuality. Recent discussions of the difficulties in formalizing modal comparisons include Wehmeier (2012) and Kocurek (2016).…”
Section: Necessitism For All P If Actually P Then Necessarily Actually Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our appeal to modal comparisons in this informal introductory section is intended merely to isolate our target notion of actuality. Recent discussions of the difficulties in formalizing modal comparisons include Wehmeier (2012) and Kocurek (2016).…”
Section: Necessitism For All P If Actually P Then Necessarily Actually Pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is only known that it is the number of the set in the world the number exists in. The difficulty identified here is with cross-world predication, which occurs when we want to say something about an object in one world and how it relates to objects in another world (Kocurek, 2016).…”
Section: A Diversity Of Modal Logicismsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clearly, 3 and 4 are just notational variants of each other. [Kocurek, 2016] uses 4; [Butterfield, Stirling, 1987] and [Wehmeier, 2012] use 3, and so do I. That is, I set the interpretation of an n-ary predicate letter P to be a function G n → P(D n ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%