Hubbry Logo
Impossible worldImpossible worldMain
Open search
Impossible world
Community hub
Impossible world
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Impossible world
Impossible world
Impossible world
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In philosophical logic, the concept of an impossible world (sometimes called a non-normal world) is used to model certain phenomena that cannot be adequately handled using ordinary possible worlds. An impossible world, , is the same sort of thing as a possible world (whatever that may be), except that it is in some sense "impossible." Depending on the context, this may mean that some contradictions, statements of the form are true at , or that the normal laws of logic, metaphysics, and mathematics, fail to hold at , or both. Impossible worlds are controversial objects in philosophy, logic, and semantics. They have been around since the advent of possible world semantics for modal logic, as well as world based semantics for non-classical logics, but have yet to find the ubiquitous acceptance, that their possible counterparts have found in all walks of philosophy.

Argument from ways

[edit]

Possible worlds

[edit]

Possible worlds are often regarded with suspicion, which is why their proponents have struggled to find arguments in their favor.[1] An often-cited argument is called the argument from ways. It defines possible worlds as "ways how things could have been" and relies for its premises and inferences on assumptions from natural language,[2][3][4] for example:

(1) Hillary Clinton could have won the 2016 US election.
(2) So there are other ways how things could have been.
(3) Possible worlds are ways how things could have been.
(4) So there are other possible worlds.

The central step of this argument happens at (2) where the plausible (1) is interpreted in a way that involves quantification over "ways". Many philosophers, following Willard Van Orman Quine,[5] hold that quantification entails ontological commitments, in this case, a commitment to the existence of possible worlds. Quine himself restricted his method to scientific theories, but others have applied it also to natural language, for example, Amie L. Thomasson in her paper entitled Ontology Made Easy.[6] The strength of the argument from ways depends on these assumptions and may be challenged by casting doubt on the quantifier-method of ontology or on the reliability of natural language as a guide to ontology.

Impossible worlds

[edit]

A similar argument can be used to justify the thesis that there are impossible worlds,[3] for example:

(a) Hillary Clinton couldn't have both won and lost the 2016 US election.
(b) So there are ways how things couldn't have been.
(c) Impossible worlds are ways how things couldn't have been.
(d) So there are impossible worlds.

The problem for the defender of possible worlds is that language is ambiguous concerning the meaning of (a): does it mean that this is a way how things couldn't be or that this is not a way how things could be.[2] It is open to critics of impossible worlds to assert the latter option, which would invalidate the argument.

Applications

[edit]

Non-normal modal logics

[edit]

Non-normal worlds were introduced by Saul Kripke in 1965 as a purely technical device to provide semantics for modal logics weaker than the system K — in particular, modal logics that reject the rule of necessitation:

.

Such logics are typically referred to as "non-normal." Under the standard interpretation of modal vocabulary in Kripke semantics, we have if and only if in each model, holds in all worlds. To construct a model in which holds in all worlds but does not, we need either to interpret in a non-standard manner (that is, we do not just consider the truth of in every accessible world), or we reinterpret the condition for being valid. This latter choice is what Kripke does. We single out a class of worlds as normal, and we take validity to be truth in every normal world in a model. in this way we may construct a model in which is true in every normal world, but in which is not. We need only ensure that this world (at which fails) have an accessible world which is not normal. Here, can fail, and hence, at our original world, fails to be necessary, despite being a truth of the logic.

These non-normal worlds are impossible in the sense that they are not constrained by what is true according to the logic. From the fact that , it does not follow that holds in a non-normal world.

For more discussion of the interpretation of the language of modal logic in models with worlds, see the entries on modal logic and on Kripke semantics.

Avoiding Curry's paradox

[edit]

Curry's paradox is a serious problem for logicians who are interested in developing formal languages that are "semantically closed" (i.e. that can express their own semantics). The paradox relies on the seemingly obvious principle of contraction:

.

There are ways of using non-normal worlds in a semantical system that invalidate contraction. Moreover, these methods can be given a reasonable philosophical justification by construing non-normal worlds as worlds at which "the laws of logic fail."

Counternecessary statements

[edit]

A counternecessary statement is a counterfactual conditional whose antecedent is not merely false, but necessarily so (or whose consequent is necessarily true).

For the sake of argument, assume that either (or both) of the following are the case:

1. Intuitionism is false.
2. The law of excluded middle is true.

Presumably each of these statements is such that if it is true (false), then it is necessarily true (false).

Thus one (or both) of the following is being assumed:

1′. Intuitionism is false at every possible world.
2′. The law of excluded middle is true at every possible world.

Now consider the following:

3. If intuitionism is true, then the law of excluded middle holds.

This is intuitively false, as one of the fundamental tenets of intuitionism is precisely that the LEM does not hold. Suppose this statement is cashed out as:

3′. Every possible world at which intuitionism is true is a possible world at which the law of excluded middle holds true.

This holds vacuously, given either (1′) or (2′).

Now suppose impossible worlds are considered in addition to possible ones. It is compatible with (1′) that there are impossible worlds at which intuitionism is true, and with (2′) that there are impossible worlds at which the LEM is false. This yields the interpretation:

3*. Every (possible or impossible) world at which intuitionism is true is a (possible or impossible) world at which the law of excluded middle holds.

This does not seem to be the case, for intuitively there are impossible worlds at which intuitionism is true and the law of excluded middle does not hold.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Bibliography

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Impossible world

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
In philosophical logic and metaphysics, impossible worlds are abstract entities or constructs that represent scenarios in which logical contradictions or metaphysical impossibilities hold true, extending the framework of possible worlds semantics to model phenomena that violate necessities. Unlike possible worlds, which are consistent and maximally specific ways things could be, impossible worlds allow for inconsistencies, such as a proposition and its negation both obtaining, enabling the analysis of attitudes, conditionals, and distinctions that possible worlds alone cannot capture. The concept of impossible worlds emerged as a natural extension of Kripke's possible worlds semantics for , introduced in the 1960s, but gained systematic development in the 1970s through non-normal modal logics. Early applications included M.J. Cresswell's work on modal logics where the necessitation rule fails, allowing worlds that do not preserve logical truths, and Jaakko Hintikka's use in representing inconsistent beliefs. By the 1990s, philosophers like Daniel Nolan advanced their role in semantics, proposing "American plan" representations where impossible worlds are unstructured sets of propositions not closed under , contrasting with "Australasian plan" views that treat them as structured like possible worlds but with altered logic. Impossible worlds have proven particularly useful in handling counterpossibles, counterfactual conditionals with impossible antecedents, such as "If , then pigs would fly," by evaluating similarity among impossible scenarios rather than dismissing them as vacuously true. They also address hyperintensionality in propositional attitudes, distinguishing necessarily equivalent contents in belief reports (e.g., believing the morning star is a body versus believing the is a body), and support logics like relevant logic where logical laws fail at certain worlds. In metaphysics, they facilitate discussions of , omissions, and explanatory gaps by permitting finer-grained distinctions than possible worlds permit. Debates surrounding impossible worlds center on their ontological status and representational adequacy, with proponents arguing they provide for real philosophical puzzles, while critics question whether they commit to an inflated or merely repackage problems without resolution. For instance, at logically impossible worlds, laws of logic entirely fail, raising challenges for how such worlds integrate into broader semantic theories without leading to triviality. Despite these concerns, impossible worlds continue to influence non-classical logics and semantic theories, offering tools for modeling the limits of and impossibility.

Definition and Motivation

Core Definition

In philosophy and logic, impossible worlds are abstract semantic models employed to evaluate propositions under conditions that violate standard constraints of possibility, such as permitting contradictions where a proposition pp and its negation ¬p\neg p both hold true simultaneously, or allowing breaches of logical, metaphysical, or mathematical laws. These models extend beyond the framework of possible worlds semantics, which limits evaluation to consistent scenarios aligned with unrestricted possibility. Unlike concrete impossible objects—such as a round square, which represents an isolated inconsistency—impossible worlds function as total indices or complete scenarios for assessing truth conditions of statements, abstracting away from physical realizability. Impossible worlds are categorized by the nature of their impossibilities. Logical impossibilities involve direct contradictions or failures of logical principles, like a scenario where does not obtain. Metaphysical impossibilities violate essential properties or necessities, exemplified by a world in which is not composed of H₂O, thus diverging from the intrinsic of substances. Nomological impossibilities, meanwhile, contravene the laws of , such as a domain where machines operate without violating conservation principles.

Philosophical Motivation

The introduction of impossible worlds into philosophical semantics arises primarily from the limitations of standard possible worlds frameworks in capturing hyperintensional phenomena, where logically equivalent propositions are not intersubstitutable in certain contexts. For instance, in attitudes like , an agent might rationally believe 2+2=42 + 2 = 4 without believing a logically equivalent statement such as ¬(¬(2+2=4))\neg(\neg(2 + 2 = 4)), yet possible worlds semantics, which identifies necessarily equivalent propositions, fails to distinguish such cases. Impossible worlds address this by allowing worlds where such distinctions hold, even if they embed contradictions, thereby providing finer-grained models for propositional content in belief reports and other hyperintensional operators. A further motivation stems from natural language constructions involving quantifiers over "ways things could be," which intuitively extend to impossible scenarios. Expressions like "in no way is p true" suggest quantification over contradictory configurations that possible worlds cannot accommodate, as they exclude inconsistencies by design. This allows impossible worlds to model counterpossibles, such as "If Hobbes had squared the circle, he would have been famous," where the antecedent is impossible but the conditional can still be meaningfully evaluated. Impossible worlds also play a crucial role in extending beyond the constraints of S5 or Kripkean semantics, enabling inconsistency-tolerant reasoning without collapsing into triviality. Traditional possible worlds restrict accessibility to consistent states, but impossible worlds permit non-normal logics (e.g., those validating only locally) to represent paraconsistent inferences or inconsistent theories as coherent. This facilitates analysis of scenarios like rational inconsistency in or the semantics of in non-classical systems. Early intuitive motivations for transcending possible worlds alone trace back to W.V.O. Quine's critiques of analyticity and modality, which exposed gaps in reducing modal notions to extensional frameworks without invoking impossible or non-standard interpretations. In works like "Two Dogmas of Empiricism," Quine argued that analytic truths blur into modality, highlighting the need for structures beyond consistent possibilities to handle logical necessities without circularity. This skepticism underscored the philosophical pressure for impossible worlds to fill explanatory voids in modal discourse.

Historical Development

Origins in Modal Logic

The concept of impossible worlds emerged within the evolution of during the early to mid-20th century, particularly as logicians sought alternatives to classical systems that suffered from paradoxes of and strict implication. Efforts in relevant logics, which emphasize a genuine connection between antecedent and consequent in conditionals, laid foundational groundwork for accommodating non-classical scenarios. For instance, Wilhelm Ackermann's 1956 formulation of rigorous implication (strenge Implikation) introduced a stricter conditional to exclude irrelevant implications, such as those from contradictions to arbitrary statements, thereby motivating semantic structures beyond standard truth-functional ones. A pivotal advancement came in 1965 with Kripke's extension of possible worlds semantics to non-normal modal logics, such as Lewis's S2 and S3, which lack the necessitation rule. Kripke defined model structures with normal worlds (accessible to themselves via the accessibility relation) and non-normal worlds (not self-accessible), where the necessity operator □φ is vacuously false regardless of φ's . This allowed non-normal worlds to falsify modalized tautologies, like □(A → A), providing a semantic basis for logics where logical truths are not necessarily true at every world. In the 1970s, the rise of paraconsistent logics, pioneered by Newton da Costa, contributed to this trajectory by enabling systems that tolerate contradictions without deriving all propositions (). Da Costa's hierarchical approach to inconsistent formal systems preserved non-triviality in the presence of inconsistencies, influencing later semantic models that represent contradictory states—effectively impossible from a classical viewpoint—without . Further developments included M.J. Cresswell's work on semantics for non-normal modal logics, allowing worlds where the necessitation rule fails and modalized logical truths are not preserved, and Jaakko Hintikka's application of such structures to represent inconsistent beliefs. These ideas built on pre-1960s precursors in relevant logic, such as C.I. strict implication, which highlighted limitations of conditionals. The Routley-Meyer semantics, formalized in the early 1970s but drawing from these earlier motivations, provided a ternary relational framework for relevant logics that explicitly permitted "impossible" situations—worlds or partial states where contradictions hold or tautologies fail—thus departing from the orthodox possible worlds semantics that presupposed logical consistency across all worlds.

Key Developments and Proponents

In the late and , developments in impossible worlds gained traction through metaphysical explorations of and modality. Amie L. Thomasson advanced metaphysical arguments for understanding fictional entities as abstract artifacts, which exhibit a "double life" in intra-fictional and extra-fictional discourse. In her 1999 work, Thomasson argued that such entities resolve issues in negative existentials and modal claims about non-existent objects, grounding fictional truths without committing to possibilist or Meinongian extremes. Impossible worlds have subsequently been proposed as a framework for analyzing similar issues in . The 2000s marked a surge in interest, with contributions emphasizing impossible worlds as representations of scenarios beyond possible worlds, particularly in hyperintensional contexts where propositions are distinguished by aboutness rather than mere truth conditions. Yablo's work on aboutness enriched semantics by enabling non-trivial analyses of conceivability and fictional plausibility. Concurrently, Berto's 2008 paper on impossible worlds and propositions critiqued the parity thesis between possible and impossible worlds, advocating their role in hyperintensional semantics to model fine-grained contents like inconsistent narratives without collapsing into triviality. Key proponents have shaped the discourse through diverse lenses. Thomasson continues to emphasize metaphysical grounding, viewing impossible worlds as essential for artifactual theories of fiction that integrate modality without ontological excess. Berto and Mark Jago, in their collaborative efforts, champion logical pluralism, arguing that impossible worlds accommodate non-normal logics and varying inferential rules across worlds, as detailed in their 2019 book which synthesizes these ideas into a comprehensive metaphysics. Their work highlights impossible worlds' utility in belief revision and inconsistent databases, rejecting vacuously true counterpossibles. Post-2010 integrations have extended impossible worlds into two-dimensional semantics and structured propositions. David Chalmers's 2006 framework, further developed in subsequent applications, incorporates impossible worlds to analyze epistemic possibility and positive conceivability, distinguishing deep necessities from a priori knowables. Berto and Jago build on this by embedding impossible worlds within structured propositions—sequences of objects and properties—to achieve hyperintensional granularity, enabling precise modeling of modal attitudes and fictional truths beyond standard possible worlds semantics.

Theoretical Foundations

Relation to Possible Worlds Semantics

Possible worlds semantics, as developed by , provides a framework for using Kripke frames consisting of a set of consistent possible worlds WW and an accessibility relation R⊆W×WR \subseteq W \times W. In this semantics, necessity (□A\Box A) holds at a world w∈Ww \in W if AA is true at all worlds accessible from ww via RR, while possibility (◊A\Diamond A) holds if AA is true at some accessible world; all worlds satisfy , ensuring bivalent valuations where no contradictions obtain. Impossible worlds extend this framework by incorporating non-normal worlds into the set WW, forming extended Kripke frames that include both possible (normal) and impossible (non-normal) worlds to model phenomena where standard modal logics falter. These non-normal worlds violate the necessitation rule, according to which a ⊢A\vdash A implies ⊢□A\vdash \Box A; instead, ⊢A⇏□A\vdash A \not\Rightarrow \Box A, allowing logical truths to fail at some worlds. Unlike possible worlds, where necessary truths hold universally, impossible worlds permit their failure, enabling representation of logical or metaphysical violations. In such frames, accessibility relations RR may connect normal worlds to non-normal ones, enabling the evaluation of modal operators at inconsistent states where classical constraints do not hold. A key feature of these extended frames is that impossible worlds allow even necessary truths (true in all possible worlds) to fail, such as logical or mathematical truths. Mathematically, this is captured by valuations vwv_w at a world ww that deviate from standard bivalence: for atomic s pp, vw(p)v_w(p) and vw(¬p)v_w(\neg p) can both be true, allowing contradictions to obtain without recursive truth preservation for complex formulas in non-normal worlds. This contrasts sharply with Kripke's original consistent assignments, where valuations ensure no world satisfies both a proposition and its .

Properties and Types of Impossible Worlds

Impossible worlds exhibit several distinctive properties that set them apart from possible worlds in modal semantics. One key property is that they can falsify necessary truths; for instance, basic arithmetic like "2 + 2 = 4" or geographical facts such as " is in " may be false there, allowing for scenarios that diverge radically from reality. Another property is non-monotonicity, where adding further information to a description does not necessarily preserve the truth of prior propositions, as the logical closure under consequence may break down in these worlds. Additionally, accessibility relations between impossible worlds often fail transitivity, meaning that if world w1 is accessible from w2 and w2 from w3, it does not follow that w1 is accessible from w3, enabling more flexible but irregular modal structures. Impossible worlds are classified into several types based on the nature of their impossibilities. Logical impossible worlds are those that violate principles of , such as containing outright contradictions where a proposition and its negation both hold true. Metaphysical impossible worlds involve violations of essential properties or natures, exemplified by scenarios like a , where an object's inherent attributes are incoherently combined. Alethic impossible worlds represent absolute impossibilities, such as necessary falsehoods that cannot obtain in any . These properties and types have logical implications, particularly in supporting frameworks like , which posits true contradictions (truth-value gluts) as coherent; for example, Graham Priest's work argues that impossible worlds can model such gluts without leading to triviality, as in paraconsistent logics where fails. A representative case is an impossible world where the fails, rendering a P neither true nor false, thus allowing undecided or gappy truth values that challenge bivalence. This aligns with broader uses in non-normal modal logics, as detailed in seminal treatments by philosophers like Daniel Nolan and Francesco Berto.

Arguments Supporting Impossible Worlds

Argument from Ways

The argument from ways provides a key justification for impossible worlds by appealing to everyday linguistic practices that quantify over scenarios beyond mere possibilities. It posits that expressions like "in some ways p" or "in no ways q" in extend to impossible scenarios, such as the claim that both wins and loses the 2016 U.S. presidential election, which no could realize. This quantification suggests that "ways" encompass not only how things could be but also how they could not be, paralleling the role of possible worlds in modal semantics. Formulated in detail by Vander Laan (1997), building on Lewis's (1973) defense of possible worlds as exhaustive "ways things could have been," the argument highlights a deductive structure: (1) Utterances of "no way" perform an exhaustive quantification over all conceivable logical scenarios, including those that violate logical constraints and thus count as impossible; (2) Semantic adequacy for interpreting such exhaustive claims requires positing impossible worlds to serve as the domains of this quantification, avoiding incompleteness in the analysis of modality. Philosophically, this argument aligns with plural quantification over , treating impossible worlds as a natural extension of the needed for possible ones, without reducing modal discourse to only consistent possibilities. It thereby counters eliminativist positions that deny impossible worlds, as these cannot fully account for negative existentials such as "no is round," where the truth of the denial relies on the absence of any scenario—possible or impossible—in which a cube exemplifies roundness. Yablo (2006) further supports this line of reasoning by emphasizing how presuppositional structures in modal language demand resources for representing inconsistent ways without catastrophic semantic failure.

Argument from Hyperintensionality

Hyperintensionality refers to semantic contexts, such as those involving propositional attitudes like , where logically equivalent sentences fail to be substitutable while preserving truth conditions. For instance, an individual might believe that [2 + 2](/page/2_+_2_=_?) = 4 without believing that there are infinitely many prime numbers, even though both statements are true in all possible worlds and thus logically equivalent. This phenomenon highlights a need for finer-grained distinctions in the analysis of content than what possible worlds semantics can provide, as the latter equates propositions based solely on their modal profiles across accessible possible worlds. The argument from hyperintensionality, prominently developed by Francesco Berto, posits that possible worlds semantics conflates distinct intensions by treating all necessarily true propositions as identical, since they hold at every , and all necessarily false ones as the . In response, impossible worlds are invoked to model propositions as sets that may include these non-normal scenarios, enabling the differentiation of hyperintensional contents through contradictory or inconsistent configurations that capture subtle epistemic or semantic differences. This approach addresses the failure of possible worlds to distinguish, for example, between an agent's grasp of simple arithmetic truths and more complex logical tautologies, without relying on equivalence under necessity. A central illustration of this argument concerns the failure of propositional identity under necessity: despite two sentences AA and BB being logically equivalent (A≡BA \equiv B), it is not necessarily the case that □(A↔B)\Box (A \leftrightarrow B) in hyperintensional contexts, as the contents may diverge in ways not captured by possible worlds. Berto's framework supports this by treating impossible worlds as ersatz structures—abstract representations akin to structured meanings—that allow for the precise of propositions beyond mere truth-at-worlds, thereby resolving hyperintensional puzzles in belief reports and similar operators.

Applications in Logic and Philosophy

Non-Normal Modal Logics

Non-normal modal logics are propositional or predicate logics augmented with modal operators, such as necessity (□\Box) and possibility (◊\Diamond), that fail to satisfy the distribution axiom K (□(A→B)→(□A→□B)\Box (A \to B) \to (\Box A \to \Box B)) or the necessitation rule (if ⊢A\vdash A, then ⊢□A\vdash \Box A). These systems, including S2 and S3, allow for modalities where logical truths are not necessarily necessary, contrasting with normal modal logics like K, T, S4, and S5, where such principles hold universally. Seminal examples include logics where □\Box (the excluded middle A∨¬AA \lor \neg A) is false, enabling the modeling of defeasible or non-monotonic reasoning without collapsing into triviality. The semantics for non-normal modal logics were first systematically developed using frames that incorporate non-normal worlds, a type of impossible world where modal operators evaluate independently of the truth values of their arguments. In Kripke's framework, a model consists of a set of worlds partitioned into normal and non-normal ones, with an accessibility relation RR such that from a normal world, accessible worlds can be non-normal. At non-normal worlds, □A\Box A is false and ◊A\Diamond A is true for all propositions AA, while classical connectives like conjunction and behave standardly; this ensures that only modal behavior deviates, preserving consistency for extensional logic. Such worlds are impossible because they violate logical closure under modality, allowing scenarios where necessities fail to distribute or propagate as in possible worlds semantics. This semantic approach extends to more general impossible worlds, where non-normality arises from stricter constraints, such as worlds permitting contradictions or gaps in truth valuation. For instance, Cresswell's S0.5 system assigns arbitrary truth values to modal sentences at non-normal worlds, further broadening the class to handle logics with variable modal strength. Priest characterizes non-normal worlds as "abnormal" in that they reject the monotonicity of modality, arguing they are essential for logics addressing hyperintensional contexts or paraconsistent reasoning, where impossible configurations like contradictory beliefs must be representable without . In the broader context of impossible worlds semantics, non-normal logics facilitate applications in philosophy, such as modeling logical omniscience puzzles or non-factualist attitudes toward modality, by allowing to worlds that embed impossibilities selectively. These systems remain influential in deontic and epistemic logics, where normal modalities might overcommit to universal necessity, and continue to be refined in hybrid frameworks combining impossible worlds with varying conditions.

Resolving Semantic Paradoxes

Curry's paradox emerges in semantically closed languages through a self-referential sentence YY defined by the biconditional Y↔(Y→⊥)Y \leftrightarrow (Y \to \bot), where ⊥\bot denotes falsehood. Assuming the transparency of the truth predicate, , the contraction principle (A→(A→B))→(A→B)(A \to (A \to B)) \to (A \to B), and the principle of explosion (from AA and ¬A\neg A, anything follows), the reasoning derives ⊥\bot from YY, leading to the trivialization of the entire theory by proving every sentence. Impossible worlds provide a resolution by extending modal semantics to include non-normal worlds where contradictions obtain, thereby invalidating contraction in those worlds and blocking the explosive step of the . In such semantics, the conditional fails to uphold contraction at contradictory worlds, as the antecedent A→(A→B)A \to (A \to B) may hold while A→BA \to B does not, due to the arbitrary assignment of truth values for complex formulas in impossible worlds. This approach maintains a naive truth theory without restricting self-reference or abandoning classical principles globally. The implementation occurs within paraconsistent logics such as the Logic of Paradox (LP) or First-Degree Entailment (FDE), where impossible worlds semantics accommodates truth-value gluts—sentences being both true and false—without permitting , as relevant implication and conjunction behave non-monotonically at non-normal worlds. These logics evaluate sentences at impossible worlds using a valuation that allows gluts locally, preserving non-triviality in the overall system. For instance, the paradoxical sentence YY can be assigned both true and false in an , satisfying Y↔(Y→⊥)Y \leftrightarrow (Y \to \bot) via a glut while isolating the inconsistency to that world alone, preventing it from propagating to derive arbitrary claims in normal worlds.

Handling Counternecessary Conditionals

Counternecessary conditionals, also known as counterpossibles, are counterfactual statements with necessarily false antecedents, such as "If there were a , it would have three sides." These conditionals pose a challenge in because their antecedents cannot obtain in any , yet they appear to convey substantive information in philosophical discourse. The standard semantics for counterfactuals developed by Stalnaker and Lewis evaluates a conditional "If A were the case, then C would be the case" as true if C holds in all possible worlds closest to the actual world where A is true. However, for counternecessary conditionals, no possible worlds satisfy the antecedent, rendering the conditionals vacuously true regardless of the consequent—a result that fails to capture intuitive non-trivial truths or falsehoods, such as distinguishing "If there were a , it would be a circle" from the three-sided variant. Impossible worlds semantics addresses this by extending the domain to include contradictory or logically impossible scenarios, allowing the antecedent to hold at such worlds while preserving a similarity ordering for evaluation. In this framework, the closest impossible worlds are those requiring minimal revisions to logical laws or metaphysical necessities, enabling non-vacuous truth conditions; for instance, the round square example might be false if the nearest impossible world preserves geometric consistency over arbitrary side counts. This approach, pioneered by Routley, permits meaningful rankings without collapsing into triviality. One illustrative application involves intuitionistic counterfactuals, which reject the and use impossible worlds to assign non-classical truth values to conditionals with gapped antecedents. Veltman's premise semantics, influencing these developments since the , integrates dynamic updates to handle such cases by temporarily assuming impossible premises while maintaining consistency in selection functions. Broader implications extend to , where counternecessary reasoning evaluates hypothetical violations of physical laws, and metaphysics, facilitating discourse on necessary truths by exploring "what if" scenarios in inconsistent but minimally altered worlds. This fine-grained evaluation aligns with demands from hyperintensionality for distinguishing logically equivalent antecedents.

Criticisms and Alternatives

Main Objections

One prominent objection to the positing of impossible worlds concerns their coherence as genuine worlds. David Lewis argues that worlds, by definition, must be consistent and complete, rendering impossible worlds—those containing contradictions—non-worlds that fail to serve as proper semantic values in . Similarly, W. V. O. Quine contends that entertaining modalities involving logical impossibilities alters the subject matter of , as such scenarios violate the consistency presupposed by any intelligible logic. Critics further raise the issue of ontological cost, asserting that impossible worlds proliferate entities unnecessarily, violating principles of metaphysical parsimony. Rather than expanding the domain of worlds to include inconsistencies, alternatives like impossible propositions or objects could handle hyperintensional phenomena without such inflationary commitments, as explored in analyses of ersatz versus genuine impossible worlds. A logical objection highlights the risk of endorsing or spawning revenge paradoxes when contradictions are localized to impossible worlds. demonstrates that non-vacuous counterpossibles evaluated at such worlds can entail inconsistent arithmetic or other explosive consequences, undermining the framework's stability unless one accepts true contradictions more broadly. Finally, impossible worlds semantics suffers from empirical underdetermination, lacking clear criteria to distinguish which specific impossibilities qualify as worlds—such as logical versus metaphysical contradictions—leading to arbitrary selections in model construction.

Alternative Frameworks

Situation semantics, developed by Jon Barwise and John Perry, offers an alternative to impossible worlds by employing partial situations—localized portions of reality—rather than complete worlds to evaluate linguistic expressions. These situations allow for modeling inconsistencies or incomplete information in specific contexts without committing to globally impossible scenarios that violate logical laws across an entire world. For instance, a sentence like "It is raining but I do not believe it" can be true in a situation where rain occurs locally but belief fails elsewhere, avoiding the need for a full impossible world where contradictions hold universally. This framework addresses concerns about ontological extravagance raised against impossible worlds by limiting scope to manageable, partial structures that align more closely with intuitive notions of information flow in discourse. Structured propositions, as articulated in the Russellian tradition by Jeffrey C. King, provide another non-world-based approach by representing propositional contents through syntactic or constituent structures composed of objects, properties, and relations, independent of possible or impossible worlds. This method captures hyperintensional distinctions—such as differing attitudes toward logically equivalent sentences—by emphasizing the internal architecture of propositions, like the order of constituents in "John seeks a " versus "A seeks John," without invoking worlds to differentiate them. Unlike impossible worlds semantics, which relies on extensional evaluation at non-normal worlds to handle such fine-grained contents, structured propositions treat hyperintensionality as a matter of compositional structure, thereby reducing reliance on modal apparatus altogether. King's framework thus prioritizes metaphysical parsimony, positing propositions as abstract but structured entities that inherently encode their cognitive and semantic differences. Logical pluralism, defended by J. C. Beall and Greg Restall, posits that multiple logics can be correct depending on context, serving as an alternative that accommodates apparent logical inconsistencies without positing impossible worlds or models. In this view, validity is relative to the inferential resources appropriate for a given domain, such as for extensional contexts and paraconsistent logics for inconsistent but non-trivial theories, allowing rule-switching without global impossibilities. For example, Beall's endorsement of context-dependent logics enables handling phenomena like semantic paradoxes by varying relations, rather than evaluating them at impossible worlds where contradictions coexist. This pluralism directly responds to objections against impossible worlds by emphasizing flexible logical frameworks over expanded ontologies. These alternatives—situation semantics, structured propositions, and logical pluralism—generally reduce ontological commitments compared to impossible worlds by avoiding the positing of non-standard entities like contradictory or logically alien worlds, focusing instead on partiality, structure, or contextual variability. However, they may sacrifice the uniformity of modal evaluation provided by impossible worlds semantics, potentially complicating cross-context comparisons or extensional treatments of modality, as each relies on domain-specific mechanisms rather than a single, world-based extensional framework.

References

  1. https://philarchive.org/archive/DANIAI
  2. https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/ajl/article/download/4870/4324/6699
  3. https://projecteuclid.org/journals/notre-dame-journal-of-formal-logic/volume-38/issue-4/Impossible-Worlds-A-Modest-Approach/10.1305/ndjfl/1039540769.full
  4. https://philpapers.org/rec/YAGBPW
  5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/impossible-worlds/
  6. https://iep.utm.edu/impossible-worlds/
  7. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/quine/
  8. https://academic.oup.com/book/34971/chapter/298619182
  9. https://philarchive.org/archive/ACKFOA
  10. http://fitelson.org/142/kripke_2.pdf
  11. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/41fe/3eac48da81ff5deebc9341636fc1ea4e55f2.pdf
  12. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/144579369.pdf
  13. https://library.oapen.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.12657/25055/9780198812791_Impossible%20Worlds.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40660449
  15. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/impossible-worlds-9780198812791
  16. https://www.filosoficas.unam.mx/~morado/Cursos/17Modal/Kripke1963.pdf
  17. https://philpapers.org/rec/BERIWA
  18. https://philpapers.org/rec/JAGTI
  19. https://logiqueetanalyse.be/archive/issues87-220/LA139-140/LA139-140_06priest.pdf
  20. https://entailments.net/papers/beall-logica-09.pdf
  21. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=philosfacpub
  22. https://philpapers.org/rec/LEWC-2
  23. https://doi.org/10.1305/ndjfl/1039540769
  24. https://philpapers.org/rec/BARSAA
  25. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/situations-semantics/
  26. https://philpapers.org/rec/KINSP
  27. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/logical-pluralism-9780199288410
  28. https://philpapers.org/rec/BEALP
  29. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-pluralism/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.