Re:The Multiverse of 1686
by dvt on Tuesday June 20, 2017 @01:16PM
(#14596445)
Nautilus loves their multiverse. Every other article seems to be about possible worlds :)
I've always been a fan of Leibniz (and never liked Spinoza when I studied him), but I've recently started to have a change of heart. Modal logic, which is based on Leibnizian metaphysics, seems very clunky. Specifically, I take issue with the metalogical concepts of necessity and contingency. It may seem easy to say "I'm an engineer, but I could have been a musician" -- but it doesn't seem straightforward (and in fact it isn't) showing that that statement is true.
But at the same time, I find myself between a rock and a hard place. I can't be an existentialist either, as Plantinga's anti-existentialst argument[1] is, I think, pretty knock-down.
I've always been a fan of Leibniz (and never liked Spinoza when I studied him), but I've recently started to have a change of heart. Modal logic, which is based on Leibnizian metaphysics, seems very clunky. Specifically, I take issue with the metalogical concepts of necessity and contingency. It may seem easy to say "I'm an engineer, but I could have been a musician" -- but it doesn't seem straightforward (and in fact it isn't) showing that that statement is true.
But at the same time, I find myself between a rock and a hard place. I can't be an existentialist either, as Plantinga's anti-existentialst argument[1] is, I think, pretty knock-down.
[1] https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2009-10/93507/_HANDOUTS...