Possible worlds in the context of "Modal metaphysics"

Modal logic is a kind of logic used to represent statements about necessity and possibility. In philosophy and related fieldsit is used as a tool for understanding concepts such as knowledge, obligation, and causation. For instance, in epistemic modal logic, the formula ${\displaystyle \Box P}$ can be used to represent the statement that ${\displaystyle P}$ is known. In deontic modal logic, that same formula can represent that ${\displaystyle P}$ is a moral obligation. Modal logic considers the inferences that modal statements give rise to. For instance, most epistemic modal logics treat the formula ${\displaystyle \Box P\rightarrow P}$ as a tautology, representing the principle that only true statements can count as knowledge. However, this formula is not a tautology in deontic modal logic, since what ought to be true can be false.

Modal logics are formal systems that include unary operators such as ${\displaystyle \Diamond }$ and ${\displaystyle \Box }$, representing possibility and necessity respectively. For instance the modal formula ${\displaystyle \Diamond P}$ can be read as "possibly ${\displaystyle P}$" while ${\displaystyle \Box P}$ can be read as "necessarily ${\displaystyle P}$". In the standard relational semantics for modal logic, formulas are assigned truth values relative to a possible world. A formula's truth value at one possible world can depend on the truth values of other formulas at other accessible possible worlds. In particular, ${\displaystyle \Diamond P}$ is true at a world if ${\displaystyle P}$ is true at some accessible possible world, while ${\displaystyle \Box P}$ is true at a world if ${\displaystyle P}$ is true at every accessible possible world. A variety of proof systems exist which are sound and complete with respect to the semantics one gets by restricting the accessibility relation. For instance, the deontic modal logic D is sound and complete if one requires the accessibility relation to be serial.

Propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences, objects of beliefs, and bearers of truth values. They explain how different sentences, like the English "Snow is white" and the German "Schnee ist weiß", can have identical meaning by expressing the same proposition. Similarly, they ground the fact that different people can share a belief by being directed at the same content. True propositions describe the world as it is, while false ones fail to do so. Researchers distinguish types of propositions by their informational content and mode of assertion, such as the contrasts between affirmative and negative propositions, between universal and existential propositions, and between categorical and conditional propositions.

Many theories of the nature and roles of propositions have been proposed. Realists argue that propositions form part of reality, a view rejected by anti-realists. Non-reductive realists understand propositions as a unique kind of entity, whereas reductive realists analyze them in terms of other entities. One proposal sees them as sets of possible worlds, reflecting the idea that understanding a proposition involves grasping the circumstances under which it would be true. A different suggestion focuses on the individuals and concepts to which a proposition refers, defining propositions as structured entities composed of these constituents. Other accounts characterize propositions as specific kinds of properties, relations, or states of affairs. Philosophers also debate whether propositions are abstract objects outside space and time, psychological entities dependent on mental activity, or linguistic entities grounded in language. Paradoxes challenge the different theories of propositions, such as the liar's paradox. The study of propositions has its roots in ancient philosophy, with influential contributions from Aristotle and the Stoics, and later from William of Ockham, Gottlob Frege, and Bertrand Russell.

An accessibility relation is a relation which plays a key role in assigning truth values to sentences in the relational semantics for modal logic. In relational semantics, a modal formula's truth value at a possible world ${\displaystyle w}$ can depend on what is true at another possible world ${\displaystyle v}$, but only if the accessibility relation ${\displaystyle R}$ relates ${\displaystyle w}$ to ${\displaystyle v}$. For instance, if ${\displaystyle P}$ holds at some world ${\displaystyle v}$ such that ${\displaystyle wRv}$, the formula ${\displaystyle \Diamond P}$ will be true at ${\displaystyle w}$. The fact ${\displaystyle wRv}$ is crucial. If ${\displaystyle R}$ did not relate ${\displaystyle w}$ to ${\displaystyle v}$, then ${\displaystyle \Diamond P}$ would be false at ${\displaystyle w}$ unless ${\displaystyle P}$ also held at some other world ${\displaystyle u}$ such that ${\displaystyle wRu}$.

Accessibility relations are motivated conceptually by the fact that natural language modal statements depend on some, but not all, alternative scenarios. For instance, the sentence "It might be raining" is not generally judged true simply because one can imagine a scenario where it is raining. Rather, its truth depends on whether such a scenario is ruled out by available information. This fact can be formalized in modal logic by choosing an accessibility relation such that ${\displaystyle wRv}$ if ${\displaystyle v}$ is compatible with the information that is available to the speaker in ${\displaystyle w}$.

Robert Nozick (/ˈnoʊzɪk/; November 16, 1938 – January 23, 2002) was an American philosopher. He held the Joseph Pellegrino University Professorship at Harvard University, and was president of the American Philosophical Association. He is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), a libertarian answer to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice (1971), in which Nozick proposes his minimal state as the only justifiable form of government. His later work Philosophical Explanations (1981) advanced notable epistemological claims, namely his counterfactual theory of knowledge. It won Phi Beta Kappa society's Ralph Waldo Emerson Award the following year.

Nozick's other work involved ethics, decision theory, philosophy of mind, metaphysics and epistemology. His final work before his death, Invariances (2001), introduced his theory of evolutionary cosmology, by which he argues invariances, and hence objectivity itself, emerged through evolution across possible worlds.

In modal logic and the philosophy of language, a term is said to be a rigid designator or absolute substantial term when it designates (picks out, denotes, refers to) the same thing in all possible worlds in which that thing exists. A designator is persistently rigid if it also designates nothing in all other possible worlds. A designator is obstinately rigid if it designates the same thing in every possible world, period, whether or not that thing exists in that world. Rigid designators are contrasted with connotative terms, non-rigid or flaccid designators, which may designate different things in different possible worlds.