So, I gave a pop quiz to my class today because I asked them if they had any questions about any of the material we’ve been recently going over (logic) and no one had any questions. Because of their confidence I gave them a quiz, which resulted in very interesting answers. One of the questions was to describe some possible world. Simple enough, right? If they knew what a possible world they could write something simple down like “there are pink elephants” or “my shirt is red instead of blue.” However, I got this very interesting one that made me think. Think about it and let me know how you would respond to this scenario. It assumes a lot about knowledge, minds, God, etc.
In a possible world there is no predictability. Nothing that happens once happens again a second time. There is no way to know what is going to happen but there is also no such thing as knowing because there is nobody to know anything since a being would require repeated processes to function and remain functioning.
Is this a possible world?
February 15, 2013 at 13:52
It is not a possible world, because in order for a possible world to exist, it too would require repeated processes to function and remain functioning. Also, complete randomness itself would seem to require a repeatable function in order to generate such randomness
February 15, 2013 at 14:32
I agree. There would be no human beings since cell duplication cannot happen. Information translation/transcription cannot happen. So it could only have minds. But what can follow from that at this point? I’m thinking there has to be an implicit contradiction here. It’s not as simple as it seems. If it’s the case that we recognize something as true (assuming JTB = knowledge) then how could a mind recognize something as true if it cannot recognize another thing as true. The same follows for justification. Means of justification would have to be different every time. But then again, can something be justified if justification can only happen once.
February 15, 2013 at 14:39
Not only that, but true randomness allows for the possibility of an event ‘E’ to occur more than once. If E cannot occur more than once, would there not need to be a repeatable process to filter out any events that would mirror E ? The problem here is that repeatable processes cannot exist, which would then mean that the method of control for filtering out duplicate events cannot exist in the possible world that requires it, because the very act of filtering out similar events is in of itself a repeated process
February 15, 2013 at 15:09
Why are minds a requirement?
February 15, 2013 at 14:36
Unless said world is just one event/particle/indexical.
February 15, 2013 at 14:36
Is the support of human life required for a scenario to be considered “possible”? Could it not just exist uninhabited by life at all?
February 15, 2013 at 14:42
Well, it would have to be a mind or concurrently created minds (since no minds could exist after the first initial act of their coming into being).
February 15, 2013 at 15:11
I don’t understand why you assert that a mind is a requisite property
February 15, 2013 at 14:40
Is it necessary for life to exist for it to be considered a possible world? Could the world not just exist apart from life entirely? Just curious, I don’t know much on the matter.
February 15, 2013 at 14:43
Life would have to be immaterial (see other comment).
February 15, 2013 at 15:07
Maybe the properties of material in this possible reality are different and not yet considered
February 15, 2013 at 14:52
Ahh I see, I know I kind of posted the same question twice, my app crashed and I didn’t think the comment had gone through. So, even in the possible world scenario I asked, repeated processes would still be required?
February 15, 2013 at 15:05
Schroedinger’s Cat
February 15, 2013 at 15:05
Another thing I was wondering, are there really necessary conditions for a world to be “possible” such as repeated processes? Couldn’t a world that works entirely different than the conditions we understand exist? Are these considered stupid questions? I wanna know if I’m making a fool of myself lol
February 15, 2013 at 16:44
Not only is it not a possible world logically, were it, it would necessarily be an unstable one destined to die (self-consume?) in its first instances …
Consider some random event with finite possible outcomes ( such as the role of a dice), given the prohibition on repeat events, the ability for the dice to produce an outcome after the sixth role is impossible, as with all such random events.
We’re such a possible world possible logically, it would have to be very short lived ( and unstable) necessarily.
February 16, 2013 at 15:16
Can there be a world that exists without life and would that world require logic at all? I don’t see how logical processes are requisite. Can you maybe explain more of what you mean? Thanx