{"title":"Non-Qualitativeness and Aboutness","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0016","url":null,"abstract":"This is the second of two chapters devoted to a special subclass of Tolerance Puzzles based on ‘indiscernible modality’, on which qualitative truths are automatically necesssary. This chapter develops our favoured solution to these puzzles, which involves denying the qualitativeness of properties like being a table. We introduce a metaphysical notion of “aboutness” which can be used to probe the sources of non-qualitativeness, and consider some special challenges that arise on the assumption that there could be new objects that aren’t among the objects there actually are.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115436895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Iteration for Metaphysical Necessity","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0009","url":null,"abstract":"This is the second of two chapters exploring the option of resolving various Tolerance Puzzles by denying Iteration, the claim that whatever is possibly possible is possible. This chapter argues for Iteration for metaphysical possibility, based on the premise that metaphysical possibility is the broadest form of possibility. Some reject this on the grounds that, for example, it is logically possible (although metaphysically impossible) that Hesperus is distinct from Phosphorus. We show that those who accept this premise should reject the form of existential generalization required to derive the conclusion that there is a form of possibility that attaches to the proposition that Hesperus is distinct from Phosphorus. We show how under certain attractive assumptions about the grain of higher-order reality one can show that there is a broadest form of possibility, and indeed define it in purely logical terms.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124442699","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tolerance Puzzles","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0003","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter provides a general schema for regimenting a broad family of puzzles of modal variation. These puzzles begin with a ‘Tolerance’ premise according to which an objects (or a certain kind of object) can differ in any small way along a certain parameter. This is supplemented with a ‘Non-contingency’ premise according to which the Tolerance premise is necessarily true if true at all, an ‘Iteration’ premise according to which anything possibly possible is possible, and a ‘Persistent Closeness’ premise according to which what counts as a ‘small difference’ is modally constant. These premises jointly imply the conclusion, ‘Hypertolerance’, that the object or objects in question can differ arbitrarily along the relevant parameter. We show how this schema is general enough to subsume puzzles involving time or objective chance, and discuss some difficulties that arise in trying to formulate compelling instantiations of the schema involving variation in originating matter.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127137957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rejecting Iteration","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0008","url":null,"abstract":"This is the first of two chapters exploring the option of resolving various Tolerance Puzzles by denying Iteration, the claim that whatever is possibly possible is possible. In this chapter we grant for the sake of argument that Iteration fails for metaphysical necessity, and consider whether there are other Tolerance Puzzles which remain problematic even on that assumption. Our main focus is on puzzles involving ancestral metaphysical possibility—the status of being either possible, or possibly possible, or possibly possibly possible, or…—for which Iteration is guaranteed by our basic modal logic. We argue that plausible higher-order identities suggest that ancestral metaphysical possibility is not a trivial status even for those who deny Iteration for metaphysical possibility.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121363750","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Alternatives and Challenges","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0014","url":null,"abstract":"After an opening section surveying some possible alternative ways of employing semantic plasticity to handle the puzzles, this chapter discusses two challenges to the view developed in chapters 11 and 12. One involves the threat of rampant error in counterfactual speech reports. The second involves certain uncomfortable consequences of applying our favoured treatment of words like ‘that’ and ‘table’ to words like ‘I’, ‘you’, ‘person’, ‘thinker’, and ‘conscious’. We show how considerations of semantic plasticity militate in the direction of a kind of “metaphysical misanthropy”, and explore its ethical ramifications.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"47 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115783203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Indiscernible Tolerance Arguments","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0015","url":null,"abstract":"This is the first of two chapters devoted to a special subclass of Tolerance Puzzles based on ‘indiscernible modality’, on which qualitative truths are automatically necesssary. The interest in these puzzles lies in the fact that there is a distinctive argument for Non-contingency based on the premise that properties like being a table are qualitative. This chapter explores the options for resolving the puzzles compatible with accepting that premise, and hence Non-contingency for indiscernible modality.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126119735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Coincidence Puzzles","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0005","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter presents and discusses a general schema that subsumes a variety of puzzles having to do with the modal behaviour of material objects, some new and some familiar. These puzzles involve ‘Robustness’ premises according to which certain objects of a given kind are counterfactually robust in certain respects; ‘Non-coincidence’ premises according to which distinct objects of that kind are incapable of coinciding, and ‘Non-distinctness’ premises that rule out the scenarios in which actually distinct objects could have been identical; these jointly entail an absurd conclusion.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"356 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114825616","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Hypertolerance and Supervenience","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0007","url":null,"abstract":"This is the second of two chapters exploring the option of resolving various Tolerance Puzzles by accepting Hypertolerance, the conclusion that the objects in question could have been arbitrarily different in the respects relevant to the puzzle. This chapter considers what seems to us to be the most promising strategy for arguing against Hypertolerance, based on a physicalist supervenience principle. We show how this principle rules out Hypertolerance in certain “fine-grained” Tolerance Puzzles, and consider to what extent this generalises to other Hypertolerance claims.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134205697","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Motivating Non-Contingency","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0004","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter takes up the question of how to motivate the crucial ‘Non-Contingency’ premise in the Tolerance Puzzles introduced in Chapter 2, a question that has received surprisingly little attention in the literature on these puzzles. We articulate and set aside some dubious motivations for the premise, including motivations which assimilate Tolerance Puzzles to the well-known Sorites Paradox. In place of these, we develop a ‘Security Argument’ for Non-contingency, based on the thought that it is not just a matter of chance or luck that we avoid error in believing the Tolerance premise.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"8 3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115465876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Refinements and Choice Points","authors":"C. Dorr, J. Hawthorne, Juhani Yli-Vakkuri","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192846655.003.0013","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter further develops the framework introduced in the previous chapter. We suggest that the best approach to many Tolerance Puzzles involves some contextual flexibility, allowing not only for contexts in which Non-contingency is false but also for contexts in which Hypertolerance is true. We discuss how plasticity and plenitude can also be used to solve the Coincidence Puzzles introduced in chapter 4, and conclude by considering a range of open questions and case studies.","PeriodicalId":324490,"journal":{"name":"The Bounds of Possibility","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133698418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：