Possible Worlds and Modal Realism (explained and debated)

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the ideas of possible worlds as well as the metaphysical theory of Modal Realism.

Possible worlds are often used by philosophers to understand possible from necessary truths as well as to ponder counterfactuals. Philosophers have however questioned the ontological status of possible worlds themselves. Modal realism believes every possible world actually exists as a concrete real world, and so every possibility, every possible state of affairs that could exist does actually exist in some possible world.

Watch as possible worlds and modal realism is explained and debated.

For an introduction to philosophy, check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon:
Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion

Volume 2 - Metaphysics

Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

For an introduction to philosophy, check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon:
Volume 1 – Philosophy of Religion

Volume 2 - Metaphysics

Volume 3 – Ethics and Political Philosophy

[BillLowenburg]

I’ve always believed this, instinctively, since I was a little kid - and now I’m 67. I came to the conclusion on my own and have never heard it discussed or read it until seeing this post. The idea of an infinite variety of possible worlds strikes me as not only real, but actually necessary, if you agree with the concept of infinity and an endless universe. Likewise, I believe that everything that has ever happened is still happening, only it’s in another location in the universe. We just can’t perceive it. So the concept of “time” is local. Nice video, thanks !

[pallabidutta]

The mind can possibly imagine an indefinite number of things. But as Kant had said, to apply the apriori categories of understanding to non-sensible things is to embrace transcendental illusions.

[mugsofmirth]

Interesting timing on this video, especially since I literally just got done watching one on the Ontological Argument for the existence of God.

[worsttrainrideever]

In another possible world Modal Realism can actually be defended, but in this possible world it is just some guy nerding out on a thought experiment he committed too much towards out of excitement for arguing the absurd and getting the “incredulous stare.” Fun stuff fellows.

[timmy]

How about if we mention the aleph, A set of possible worlds

[eklektikTubb]

5:16 "Any chance that i could actually visit this possible world? Actually no, that is not possible." - This is where Occams Razor goes out of the window. There could have been a mental model where anything that i can think of is possible, now we have to include another cathegory "thinkable but impossible things". And how many thinkable things are impossible? One? Two? Half of them? Or they are all impossible except the world that we live in?
I have a bit different theory - i suppose that possibilities exist as some semi-real probability waves in OUR world, some ghostly invisible immaterial abstracts.

[jc]

Another good video. Videos covering maybe the multiverse theory, parallel universes etc would be interesting.

[bettergaming]

Brilliant video, truly proud of you. (:

[jean-pierredevent]

As far as I know string theory too proposes a multiverse. In each world the constants of nature are slightly different which can result in all kinds of universes.
This comes close to modal realism but it seems not completely the same.
My own version?? I imagine indeed almost endless variations of the constants of nature. Nobody knows but most likely most "solutions or combinations" are not fertile. Some might be slightly fertile, start to develop but then stop.
Others like ours take a good start and soon, based on the same constants, many parallel universes are like branching off. But they are perhaps not separated but more like pages, in a book with each page, only one letter different. What we call a movement through space or through time might be a movement of our "mind" to a possible world nearby, although there are many options explaining why we feel some free will exists. Taking a step back in time happens sometimes too but it can't be recorded in the brain.(entropy) Standing still is perhaps also possible but again, then nothing is recorded. The speed of light is the maximum speed to read the pages. Any object with many particles has many particles in common with the adjacent page and that is called superposition. Our minds can wonder like a cloud around in the nearest pages of the book. The mind is .... mm, no, that one I don't know ;-)
No mushrooms or chemicals were used for this story :-)

[zainmushtaq]

Thoroughly enjoyed this, to my surprise 😇

[HaydnArlene-iy]

Thomas Sarah Martinez Donna Garcia Ruth

[jordonlongley]

What if all extraterrestrial species and alien life are just possible worlds?

[zerstyrer]

drops mic*
I was like the counterargument just destroys modality, which is in line with my thinking as I was "following" along.

[DavidVilla]

Great video. I find the idea of manifesting possible worlds not convincing. There is no evidence and it is beyond our comprehension. However, it's an interesting study of relations from a mathematical perspective. Will see if my course this semester will enlighten me.

[immediMinds]

While we don't have actual contact with other realities, precise abstractions (like maths) can measure their possibility. As for the theory being counterintuitive, that actually is an axiomatic evidence in favor of the theory. See, the theory has a notion that human-like experiences heavily rely on considering its reality as dimensional, including temporal. It's unlikely to perceive a narrative that doesn't ideate dimensions; so, the ability to realize the converse truth of actual existences existing without literally being temporal is severely diminished.

We, each, are an a-temporally eternal and self-essential experience. We don't blend in as the same being; we are distinct and exist as our own reality. Interestingly, it's because we exist like unto singularities that we require such little power to exist... we may say that each of us only require a unit of one indivisible (only one constituent), particular existence that--for it--never has not existed.

Only conceptually and not actually, we exist infinitely separated by nonexistence--"my present experience isn't yours." Nonexistence also can be abstracted as our container or anything else, really, because it's non-actual and open to definitions that don't require its existence. A being would need to renounce everything existent about itself to traverse nonexistence and thereby be someone else. The narrative of someone doing just that isn't in reference to anything possible but, instead, is a measurement that ultimately states the separate nature of existences.

The infinitude of experiences that exist aren't impossibly infinite. For one, the possibility of infinite doppelgangers can account for that. Moreover, what a correct version of the theory should posit isn't that there're infinite timelines but, instead, that each moment of experience exists without changing. Even within one second of a timeline, there may be infinite moments--infinite divisions within it. Note that this doesn't invoke Zeno's paradox, since none of us become another [or different than what's been oneself].

We may later conclude that every possible experience necessarily exists, with a possibility only being an estimation that ponders a certainty because its user lacks information. My opinion, therefore, is that every self-coherent experience exists infinite times, the more useful count of any one of us instead being a ratio of itself to the rest--a percentage of quantity based on how easily coherent (not seemingly self-contradicting) it is, in comparison to another. Ex: me being a star athlete may be completely possible, but my mind that naturally thinks about metaphysics in either case is more likely to be a metaphysicist; so, my person probably has more existences as a [broke] metaphysicist.

From a Solipsistic mindset, it's revealed that I don't have direct knowledge of such experiences existing. Every thought-train of multifaceted logic isn't fully verifiable. Only an indivisible experience can completely be known; though, unfortunately, that knowledge is more intuitive as 1st-person reification, instead of as our symbols/statements that can't fully satisfy being known. The difference between inherent knowledge and partial, intellectual knowledge indicates the dissonance that we "use" to project dimensional "realities" that we fool-heartedly assume to extend beyond one's experience and yet be our actual self. Our projected identification as, both, an individual and an encompassing universe--both as legitimately whole existences--is due to us not realizing that multi-faceted structures aren't existences but only are representative measurements that indicate facts about anything real or, even, impossible. We may say that individual experience-existences are the fundamental data that we project structures by, since it only is us that don't refer to anything other than oneself in order to be completely stated: structures/concepts always require references to other data or structures, each of those nonexistent things ultimately being the same super-structure made of nonexistence but possibly partially referring to actual existences.

Which experience-beings exist--what're they like? Well, lacking the requirement of a single being literally existing as unfolding a timeline frees us from assuming that a single timeline is all that's relative to that experience-being. More than one timeline might accurately structure around that exact experience. We might have multiple pasts and futures; though, they all are narratives that break-down if they don't stick with one's present experience as being one's only immovable datum, non-existent data being conceptually modifiable. All in all, an experience's own self-coherence logically tells its probability, not necessarily the universe(s) that it's related to. At best, a universe will indicatively map the measurements of experiences and ideas that we care about. Notwithstanding, the many pieces of knowledge that it would reflect show our biases that shape our struggles, since all of those data are part of a structure than contains fallacies... not to mention that our grasps of them are partial and that any perception is as if formed via disturbance/stress/tensions. Every advantage comes with disadvantages, if it's not a paradox (unreal and imaginary).

[Xerneas]

9:10 EXACTLY, creepy💀💀😭 10:10 same same

[cosmicmusicreynolds]

possible different worlds ? Where the figures in this vid ready do look like this lol

[incognito]

It’s the “atheists of the gaps” argument.

[JSulliv]

when a philosopher tries acid for the first time