Tim, I'm afraid I still don't understand you.
On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 06:00:26PM -0700, Tim May wrote:
> It is possible that WWIII will happen before the end of this year. In
> one possible world, A, many things are one way...burned, melted,
> destroyed, etc. In another possible world, B, things are dramatically
Ok, but what about my point that you can state this by explicit
quantification over possible worlds rather than using modal operators?
I.e., "There exist a world accessible from this one where WWIII happens
before the end of this year." instead of "It is possible that WWIII will
happen before the end of this year."?
> There can be no implication from one world to the other. That is, we
> can't say "A implies B" or "B implies A."
What does that have to do with my question? Anyway A and B are supposed to
be worlds here, not propositions, so of course you can't say "A implies
B". I don't know what point you're trying to make here.
> This branching future is exactly what I was talking about a week or so
> ago in terms of "partially ordered sets." If the order relationship is
> "occurs before or at the same time as," which is equivalent to "less
> than or equal to," A and B cannot be linearly ordered. In fact, since
> both A and B are completely different states, neither can be said to be
> a predecessor or parent of the other. In fact, A and B are not
I'm with you so far in this paragraph.
> We cannot say "A or not-A."
Now I'm lost again. Again A is a world not a proposition so what would "A
or not-A" mean even if A and B are comparable?
If anyone else understand the point Tim is making please help me out...