There are no real facts about possibilities – science is not modal, and nor should our metaphysics be.

Read the Story

Show Top Comments

“In trying to make sense of the way we talk about possibility, David Lewis argued that everything that could possibly exist does exist, in some possible world. But our best scientific theories suggest that there are no real facts about what’s possible, and therefore possible worlds aren’t real, argues John Divers.”


The author gives us no reason to think that modal realism is the only way to make sense of modal claims. There are like two living philosophers who actually believe this. Basically everybody else thinks that possible worlds are something like abstract objects (like numbers), and that Lewis has no good arguments to the contrary. The author is committed to denying it is a fact that, e.g. “Nothing can be accelerated to a velocity that exceeds that of light”. Good luck finding many scientists who agree with him here. The author’s only argument for this is that if this was a fact, then modal realism would be true. Again, he provides no reason to think this.


So this is just an argument against modal realism and not modality in general?


The multi-verse is merely an interpretation of the absurd-seeming (non-deterministic) behaviour of quantum phenomena, one of many interpretations, like de Broglie’s or the Copenhagen interpretation.


Great read, might have to read it again tho. Personally, I’d argue science tells us “if what we think is true is statistically repeatable enough to agree on that thing to be true as a community” As in, are you sure there are sociopaths? Or do enough people show enough of the predetermined traits of a psychological disorder so the scientific community can run studies and decide that the likelyhood of sociopaths existing is over a certain percentage at which point peer review would acknowledge it as “Scientific-Fact” I admit using psychology as example may not be the best science. So. Do we know that a higgs boson exists in the real world? Or are the abstract measurements of voltage discrepancies in a higly clinical environment just enough in line with the (loaded by the “standardmodel”) question we were asking? I’m in no way “anti-science” just higly cynical.