Hymers - The Magic of Modal Realism

8/14/2019 Hymers - The Magic of Modal Realism

1/14

This article was downloaded by: [Rutgers University]On: 15 November 2011, At: 19:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Australasian Journal of

PhilosophyPublication details, including instructions for

authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajp20

Something less thanparadise: The magic of

modal realismMichael Hymers

a

aUniversity of Alberta

Available online: 02 Jun 2006

To cite this article:Michael Hymers (1991): Something less than paradise: The

magic of modal realism, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 69:3, 251-263

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048409112344731

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any

form to anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or makeany representation that the contents will be complete or accurate orup to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publishershall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, orcosts or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajp20http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048409112344731http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajp20


2/14

ustralasian Jou rna l o f PhilosophyVol. 69 No. 3: September 1991

S O M E T H I N G L E SS T H A N P A R A D I SE :T H E M A G I C O F M O D A L R EA L IS MM i c h a e l H y m e r s

A c c o r d i n g t o D a v i d L e w i s , m o d a l r e a l i s m o ff er s a v i rt ua l a r a d i s e i n w h i c ht o e n t e r ta i n, a n d m a y b e e v e n s o l v e, a v a r i e t y o f p h i l o s o p h i c a l q u e s t io n s.I f w e c a n b u t c a s t o f f s o m e o f o u r a c tu a li s t n h ib it io ns , e a r e f r e e t o e n t e ra r e a l m i n w h i c h t r u t h- c o n di t i o ns a n b e g i v e n f o r c o u n t e r f a c t u a l o n di t io n al s ,t h e v e i l o f o p a c i t y c a n b e l if te d r o m t h e c o n t e n t s o f o u r b e li ef s, r i g o r o u sa c c o u n t o f p r o p e r t i e s c a n b e g i v e n , a n d - - o f c o u r s e - - s u b t l e q u e s t i o n s c a nb e a s k e d , a n d s o m e t i m e s a n s w e r e d , c o n c e r n i n g t h e p o s si b l e n d t h e n e c e s s a r y.

B u t a p r i c e m u s t b e p a i d f o r a d m i s s i o n , f o r w e m u s t p u t o u r f a it h i nm a n y w o r l d s , a p lu ra li ty f t h e m . T h e s e w o r l d s a r e s p a t i o - t e m p o r a l I y s ol a t edf r o m e a c h o t h e r a n d f r o m o u r o w n w o r l d ; t h e y a r e n o t l o c a t e d a t a n y d i s t a n c ef r o m u s, n o r is t h e r e a n y t i m e a t w h i c h t h e y w i l l b e. A n d t h e s e w o r l d sa r e e v e r y bi t a s r e a l a s th e w o r l d w e t h i n k w e k n o w - - m a n y i n h a b i t e d b yc r e a t u r e s m u c h l i k e o u r s e l v e s , m a n y o t h e r s , i n h a b i t e d b y c r e a t u r e s q u i t ed if fe re nt , till t h e r s q u i t e b a r r e n a n d d e s ol a t e. u r w o r l d i s u s t o n e a m o n g s tt h e s e m a n y , a n d it is d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e o t h e r s i n r e l a ti o n t o o u r s e lv e s ,b y n o t h i n g m o r e t h a n t h e f a c t t h a t it is u r w o r l d a n d n o t s o m e o n e else s.

I s t h is a p r i c e w o r t h p a y i n g ? L e w i s m a i n t a i n s t h a t it is, b u t h e p u r p o r t st o t a k e s e r i o u s l y t h e c h a r g e t h a t it i s n o t , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e b e n e f i t s a r en o t w o r t h t h e c os t , e c a u s e t h e y c a n b e h a d m o r e c h e a p l y e l s e w h e r e . A n ds o, L e w i s s e t s o u t t o d is c r ed i t t h e p r o d u c t s o f h i s r iv al s, h o w o u l d f o r c eg e n u i n e m o d a l r e a l i s m f r o m t h e m a r k e t a n d p e d d l e i n its s t e a d s o m e s n a k e -o i l is h e r sa tz o d a l r e a l i s m . B u t t h i s i s t o o v e r s i m p l i f y , o r t h e e r sa t ze r sh a v e d i s a g r e e m e n t s a m o n g s t t h e m s e l v e s . T h e l in gu is ti c e r s a t z e r s w a n t t ose ll r e p l i c a s o f w o r l d s b u i l t f r o m s e t s o f s e n t e n c e s ; t h e p i ct o ri a l e r s at z e rsw o u l d l i k e t o g e t b y w i t h e l a b o r a t e p i c t u r e s i n p l a c e o f g e n u i n e L e w i s -w o r l d s ; a n d t h e m a g i c a l e r s a t z e r s - - t h e m a g i c i a n s - - s e e k t o r e p l a c e L e w i s -w o r l d s w i t h f e a t ur e l e s s e nt it ie s, r o u p s o f w h i c h a r e s el e ct e d a c c o r d i n gt o t h e p o ss i bi l it i es e i n g r e p r e s e n t e d .

A g a i n s t t h e f o r c e s o f e r s a t z i s m L e w i s l a u n c h e s a v a r i e t y o f a t t ac k s , s o m eo f w h i c h a r e c l e a r l y c o m p e l l i n g , o t h e r s o f w h i c h a r e l e s s s o. I s ha l l a r g u ei n t h i s p a p e r t h a t p ic to ri al r s a t z i s m c a n n o t c l e a r l y b e d i s t i n g u i s he d f r o mm a g i c a l e r s a t z i s m , a n d - - m o r e i n te r es t in g l y -- t h a t g e n u i n e m o d a l r e a l i s mi s s u b j e c t t o p r e c i s e l y t h e c r i t i c i s m s s o f a t a l f o r t h e m a g i c a l e r s at z e r s. n

L e w i s [ 4 p . 5 ] .2 S e e L e w i s [ 4 c h a p t e r 3 ].

2 5 1

Downloadedby[RutgersUniversity]at

19:0415November2011


3/14

252 Something Less Than Paradise. The Magic of Modern Realismshor t , I sha l l a rgue tha t Lewis i s h imse l f a mag ic ian , and tha t be l iev ingin Le w is -w or lds i s too h igh a p r ice to pay fo r en t ry in to h is m ag ica l pa rad ise ,w h a te v e r c o n ju r in g g a m e s i t m ig h t a l l o w u s t o p la y .

I. Sen tences , P ic tu res and a Li t t le Mag ic

W e o u g h t t o s t a r t b y l o o k in g a l i t t l e mo re c lo s e ly a t wh y Le wis t h in k she i s se l l ing a be t te r p roduc t than the e r sa tz moda l rea l i s t s . I t i s e spec ia l lyimpor tan t to no t ice two theses tha t Lewis sha res wi th the e r sa tze rs : ( i ) wea re c o m m i t t e d t o t h e e x i s t e n c e o f wh a te v e r e n t it ie s o u r l o g ic q u a n t i fi e s o v e r ,a n d ( i i ) p o s s ib l e -wo r ld s s e ma n t i c s o f f e r a n explanation o f m o d a l i t y . W h e nt h e e r sa t ze r s c h o o s e t o a n a ly s e O F a a s ( 3 w ) F a w , t h e y c o m m i t t h e m s e lv e sto t h e e x i s t e n c e o f wo r ld s j u s t a s w h o le -h e a r t e d ly a s d o e s Le wis ; th e y j u s th a p p e n n o t t o a g r e e w i th Le w is a b o u t w h a t k in d s o f th in g s wo r ld s a re .Moreover , th i s ana lys i s i s indeed an ana lys i s i t revea ls the rea l mean ingo f c o m m o n m o d a l t a lk , s o t h a t p o s s ib l e wo r ld s explain poss ib i l i ty andnecess i ty . I t i s he re tha t L ew is th inks he h as the adv an ta ge ov er the e r sa tze rs ,b e c a u s e h e t a k e s h i s a c c o u n t o f wh a t wo r ld s are t o b e t h e o n ly o n e t h a tenab les wor lds to exp la in moda l i ty .The e r sa tze rs , a s w e hav e no ted , a re o f th ree va r ie t ie s : l ingu is tic , p ic to r ia land magica l . Each o f these e r sa tz i sms , th inks Lewis , su f fe r s f rom a fa ta lf law: ra the r than exp la in moda l no t ions , a s i t i s mean t to do , i t p resupposesthem.

C ons ide r l ingu is t ic e r sa tz i sm . I t m a in ta ins tha t po ss ib le wo r lds a re m ax im alcons is ten t se t s o f sen tences w hich o f fe r desc r ip t ions tha t se rve as a l te rna t ivesto t h e p ro p e r d e s c r ip t i o n o f t h e a c tu a l w o r ld. On th is a c c o u n t t h e s e t o fsen tences which desc r ibes the ac tua l wor ld i s d i s t ingu ished f rom o the r se t sby the fac t tha t i t con ta ins a l l and on ly the t rue sen tences . Consistency isa centra l not ion for th is v iew; unfor tunate ly , i t i s a lso a m o d a l not ion. Ase t o f sen tences i s cons i s ten t , i f and on ly i f a l l o f i t s members cou ld bet rue toge the r . 3 A s w e l l, any se t o f sen tenc es w hich exp l ic i tly rep resen ts ce r ta inposs ib i li t ie s a l so impl ic i tly rep resen ts o th e rs - - th os e w hich w ould be exp l ic i t lyr e p re se n t e d , f o r e x a m p le , b y fu r th e r s e n t e n c e s imp l i e d j o in t l y b y t h o s e i nthe o r ig ina l set. B u t i f th is so r t o f impl ic i t r ep resen ta t ion i s a l low ed , thenmo d a l i t y h a s s n e a k e d in a g a in , b e c a u s e t o s a y th a t s o me th in g i s r e p r e s e n te dimpl ic i t ly i s to say tha t i f sen tences in the o r ig ina l se t a re t rue , then o the rs e n t e n c e s m u s t a lso b e t rue .

N o w , th e p i c to r ia l e r s a t z e r p u rp o r t s t o o f f e r u s a w a y o u t o f th e s e p a r t i cu l a rd i f f icu l t i e s , bu t on ly by p resuppos ing moda l i ty in a s l igh t ly d i f fe ren t way .Ra the r than t ra f f ick ing in max ima l cons i s ten t se t s o f p ropos i t ions , the p ic to r ial

3 Nor as Lewis [4 pp . 152ff .] convinc ingly a rgues can th is problem b e c i rcumv ented bye.g. defining consistenc y syntac t ical ly and st ipulating that every max im al consistent setmu st be c losed under deduct ion .


19:0415November2011


4/14

M i c h a e l H y m e r s 5 3ersa tzer dea ls in e rsa tz -wo r lds wh ich represen t poss ib ili ties by p ic tur ingthem. But these wi l l have to be p ic tures in an ex tended sense of the word ,. . . a sense in w hich a s ta tue co unts as a three-d im ens ion a l p ic ture , anda w ork ing m ode l coun t s a s a fou r -d imens iona l p ic tu re . Such p i c tu re s can ,mo reove r , be i n fin it e i n ex t en t and many -d imens ion a l , c apab le o frepresent ing a con cre te w or ld in i ts en t i re ty and in a l l its de ta i r . 4 Perh apsmos t impor t an t ly , wor ld -p i c tu re s mus t r ep re sen t en t i r e ly by i somorph i sm,because p ic tu re s , a s w e a r e wo n t t o t h ink o f t hem , t yp ica l ly r ep re sen t someth ings impl ic i t ly . Whether a p ic ture of what ac tua l ly i s a g lass of waterr ep re sen t s a g l a s s o f g in i s no t de t e rminab le s imp ly f rom look ing a t t hepic ture ; w hat i s a lso requi red i s a w eal th of in forma t ion regard ing co ntextand conven t ion . Bu t a s soon a s w e beg in t ry ing to a cco m m od a te those f ac to rs ,it l ooks a s t hough we a r e dea l ing w i th som e th ing ve ry li ke l anguage . An dwe h ave jus t seen the d i f f icu l t ies en ta i led by th is .

I f p i c to r ia l w or lds can r ep re sen t by i somo rph i sm, t hen they se em to havea d is tinc t ad va ntag e over l inguis t ic w or lds in avo id ing the problem o f impl ic i tr ep re sen ta t i on . However , i f t hey a r e t o r ep re sen t by isomorphism t henseeming ly t he re mu s t be som e th ing to wh ich they a r e i som orph ic , and tha tsome th ing canno t be t he ac tua l w or ld . O the rw i se a ll wor lds wo u ld r ep re sen tthe sam e poss ib il ity . I t seem s tha t the bes t w e can say is tha t i f there h adbeen such -and- such , then som e p i c to r ia l w or ld wou ld ha ve r ep re sen ted such -and-such , bu t tha t i s i t se l f a modal c la im. Indeed , i f p ic tor ia l wor lds a rerepres entat io ns ofposs bi/ /t /e~, then the y a re red un dan t , for i t i s the possibil it iestha t do the wo rk o f exp la in ing m oda l it y . A t l eas t, t ha t is w ha t L ewis w ou ldhave us be l ieve , w her e we are to und ers tand tha t the se possib il iti es a re n oneo the r t han Lewis -wor lds : I f he i s r i gh t , t hen the p i c to r i a l e r sa t ze r ough tto s top insis ting on en t i t ies w hich re pre sen t possibi li ties in vir tue ofi somorphism a nd e m bra ce the poss ib il it ies themselves .Now, these problems for l inguis t ic and p ic tor ia l e r sa tz i sm resu l t f roma t t empt ing to make do wi th e r sa t z wor lds wh ich posses s a de t e rmina t es t ruc ture . L inguis t ic e rsa tz wor lds a re se t s of sen tences ; p ic tor ia l wor ldsrepresent by be ing i somorphic to what i t i s tha t they represent . Perhapswe ough t t o t ry ge t t i ng by wi th en t it ie s wh ich have no d e t e rmina t e s truc tu re .Ca l l them m ag ica l w or lds . Mag ica l w or lds a r e wh a teve r they have to be ,or perhaps they a re noth ing in par t icu la r a t a l l . L ike mathemat ica l po in ts ,they have no de te rmina te s t ruc ture , and i f they can possess any in t r ins icp rope r t i e s wha t soeve r , t he se p rope r t i e s mus t - - i n tu i t i ve ly - -be s imp lepropert ies . Inste ad o f repre sen t ing possibi li ties by possessing a dete rm ina tes t ruc ture , m agica l w o rd s represe nt poss ib ili ties by be ing re la ted to the ac tua l ,conc re t e wor ld i n som e w ay .Lewis s c r i ti c ism o f mag ica l w o rd s focuses on the na tu re o f t h is r e la ti on :is i t an inte rnal re lat ion, or is it an exte rna l re lat ion? If the relat ion is external ,t hen i t i s bo rne by some mag ica l wor ld t o t he ac tua l word in v i r t ue o f4 L e w i s [ 4 p . 1 6 6 ] .s S e c L e w i s [ 4 p p . 1 7 1 - 1 7 4 ] .


19:0415November2011


5/14

2 5 4 Something Les s Than P aradise The Magic o f M odern Realismno in t r ins ic proper t ies of e i ther the magica l wor ld or the ac tua l wor ld . Buti f the intr insic propert ies of these worlds are i r re levant to what possibi l i t iesthey r ep re sen t , t hen i t s eem s tha t any wor ld cou ld do the j ob and tha t iti s the ro le p layed by the wor ld tha t i s impor tan t , no t the wor ld i t se l f . Tha tsounds suspic ious ly l ike tak ing modal i ty as be ing pr ior to poss ib le wor lds ,so t ha t w ha tev e r mag ica l e r sa t z i sm ach ieved , i t wou ld no t o f f e r an exp lana t ionof mod a l it y .

The consequences a r e no be t t e r i f we suppose t ha t t he r e l a t i on be tweenthe ac tua l wor ld and a magica l wor ld i s an in te rna l one . In tha t case am agica l w or ld represents so m e poss ib ility, beca use i t possesses so m e in tr ins icp rope r ty . Ho wev er , t he so r t o f p rope r ty in ques t i on m us t be a cu r ious one ,b e c a u s e w e h a v e a l r e a d y d e c i d e d t h a t m a g i c a l w o r l d s m u s t h a v e n odete rm ina te s t ruc ture . So , a m agica l w or ld w hich repre sented the poss ib il ityo f my be ing l e f t -handed wou ld have to posses s some p r imi t i ve p rope r tywh ich s im ply w as th e pro per ty o f represent ing tha t poss ib ili ty . I t is d i f f icu ltt o unde r s t and wha t t h i s means , bu t i t appea r s t o be t an t amoun t t o s ay ingtha t m ag ica l w or lds a r e /n t r / n s / ca / /y represent t ion l ent i t i es , and moreover ,ea ch on e intr insical ly rep rese nts a uniq ue possibil ity, or set o f possibil it ies .I t sounds a s t hough mag ica l wor lds a r e mys t e r ious i n t en t iona l ob j ec t s - -m ag ica l i ndeed .

Lewis i s wi l l ing to a l low the poss ib i l i ty tha t there might be suchrep re sen ta t i ona l p rope r t i e s - - t he re i s no con t r ad i c t i on in s ay ing so - -bu t hecom pla ins t ha t t hey a r e ce r t a in ly no t p rope r ti e s w i th wh ich w e a r e f ami l ia r .A nd s ince there i s supposed to be an in te rna l re la t ion be twe en such proper t iesand moda l f ac t s , i t i s t hen unc l ea r how we cou ld be any more f ami l i a rwi th m oda l f act s: I f t he e r sa t ze r has un de r s tood h is ow n p r imi ti ve , he m us thav e do ne i t by m agic . 6 I f the ma gica l e rsa tze r insis ts upon appea l ing tosuch a t h ing a s an ob jec t whose ve ry na tu re i t i s t o r ep re sen t , we mus ta sk w ha t such a t h ing cou ld be . I f wo rds we re l ike th is , t hen the i r m ean ingswo uld be f ixed an d s ta tic , an d tha t i s c lear ly fa l se , for there is no n ecessaryconne c t ion be twe en a wo rd and wh a t i t r ep re sen t s o r r e f e r s to . I f t h is i swh a t w e a r e a ske d to appea l t o i n o rde r to exp la in moda l i t y , t hen w e ough tto ask wh at it m ean s to expla in a d i ff icu l t bu t in tu it ive ly robus t conce ptby ap pea l ing to an accou n t o f r ep re sen ta ti on w h ich r ea ll y i s m ag ica l . Th i sis no explana t ion; it i s a c oncess io n of defea t .II. The M ag ic o f I somorph i sm

So f a r we have been engaged in s t age - se t t i ng ; t he r ea l pe r fo rmance hasnot ye t begun, bu t when i t does these props wi l l p rove most s igni f icantin deve lop ing the p lo t . However , l e s t we s t a r t en t ang l ing economic andthea t r i ca l me taphor s , we shou ld r e tu rn b r i e f ly t o t he cu r ious phenomenonof r ep re sen ta t i on by i somorph i sm.I f magica l e rsa tz i sm i s a t bo t tom an exerc i se in inscru tab i l i ty , i t i s no t6 L e w i s [ 4 p . 1 7 8] . I t d o e s n o t h o w e v e r s e e m t o m e t h a t w e a r e a n y m o r e f a m i l i a r w i t hL e w i s - w o r l d s t h a n w i t h r e p r e s e n t a t io n a l p r o p e r t i e s.


19:0415November2011


6/14

Michael ymers 2 5 5a lone . In the p reced in g sec t ion I no ted uncr i t ica l ly L ew is s ins i s tence tha tp ic to r ia l e r sa tz i sm mus t rep resen t by i somorph ism and no th ing bu t : S incew e th in k o f o u r n e w e r s a t z w o r ld s a s i d e a l i s e d p i c t u r e s w e m a y s a f e l y s u p p o seth a t t h e y r e p re s e n t e n t i r e ly b y i s o mo rp h i sm. 7 Th e re i s n o ro o m h e re fo rc o n v e n t io n , f o r e x a m p le , b e c a u s e t h a t w o u ld m a k e p i c to r i a l wo r ld s to o m u c hl ik e l in g u is ti c o n e s - - c o n v e n t io n , Le w is s e e ms to a c k n o w le d g e , p l a y s a c ru c ia lro le in the rep resen ta t iona l v i r tues o f l anguage . Bu t i s i t o the rwise wi thnon- l ingu is t ic fo rm s o f rep resen ta t ion?

I s o mo rp h i s m c e r ta in ly d o e s n o t s e e m n e c e s s a ry fo r r e p r es e n t a ti o n . W o rd s ,insc r ibed o r spoken , need no t re semble in any s ign i f ican t way the th ingswhich they rep resen t . Of course , re semblance i s re la t ive to c r i t e r ia o fs imi la r i ty ; so , re la t ive to some c r i te r ion o r ano the r i t may be tha t wordsd o r e s e mb le wh a t t h e y r e p re s e n t , b u t t h a t ma k e s n o s p e c i a l d i f f e r e n c e t oth e f a c t th a t t h e y d o o r d o n o t r e p r e s en t . Ev e n i f a w o rd d o e s r e s e m b lewha t i t r ep resen ts o r re fe r s to accord ing to one c r i te r ion o f s imi la r i ty , i te q u a l ly r e s e mb le s ma n y o th e r th in g s wh ic h it d o e s n o t r e p r e s e n t - - a c c o rd in gto o the r c r it e r ia o f simi la ri ty . P ic tu res nee d no t re sem ble w ha t they rep resen te i t h e r . W h e n Ga r ry Tru d e a u d e p i c t s Ge o rg e Bu s h a s a b l a n k s p a c e o n t h epap er th e re i s ex t rao rd ina r i ly l it t le in the w ay o f phys ica l de ta i l tha t i s do ingth e r e p re s e n t in g . I n t h e a b s e n c e o f a c o n v e n t io n t o r e p r e s e n t Ge o rg e Bu s hth is w a y , n o b l a n k s p a c e c o u ld a c h i e v e s u c h r e p res e n t at i o n. O f c o u r se , wh a tm a k e s s u c h a r e p r e s e n ta t i o n a j o k e i s t h e s u g g e s t io n t h a t t h e r e / s a k in do f r e s e m b la n c e b e tw e e n Bu s h a n d b l a n k c a r to o n - s p a c e , b u t t h e p o s s ib i l it yo f t h e j o k e p r e s u p p o s e s a c o n v e n t io n o f re p r e s e n ta t io n .

W h a t i s r e a l l y a t i s s u e h e r e , h o we v e r , i s wh e th e r o r n o t r e s e mb la n c e ,o r i somorph ism, i s s u f f i c i e n t t o r e p r e s e n t s o me th in g . Ne v e r m in d wh e th e ro r no t i t i s necessa ry . I f i somorph ism i s su f f ic ien t , then I th ink tha t wesha l l f ind ourse lves in a cu r ious s i tua t ion . To the degree tha t my phys ica lf e a tu r e s we re s im i l ar t o s o m e o n e e l s e s , I c o u ld t h e n b e s a id to r e p r e s e n th im o r h e r - -q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t ly o f a n y c o n v e n t io n t o r e g a rd m e a s arepresen ta t ion , o r indeed , o f anyon e s no t ic ing the resem blance . O ne iden t ica ltw in wo u ld b e a r e p r e s e n ta t i o n o f a n o th e r . E v e ry r a in d ro p w o u ld r e p res e n te v e ry o th e r ra ind ro p . I f w in d a n d we a th e r in g o n s o m e d i s ta n t p l a n e t j u s th a p p e n e d to s c u lp t a n e a r -p e r f e c t l i k en e s s o f Da v id L e wis , th e n t h a t f r e a k -o c c u r r e n c e w o u ld p ro d u c e a r e p r es e n t a ti o n o f Le wis .

Bu t s u r e ly th is i s n o t th e c a s e . To b o r ro w a n e x a m p le , i f a n a n t c r a wl in gin t h e s a n d t r a c e s wh a t l o o k s l ik e a r e a s o n a b le c a r i c a tu r e o f W in s to nChurch i l l , i t does no t fo l low tha t the pa th in the sand the reby represen tsCh u rch i ll . s L ik e wi s e , i f th e F r i e n d s o f Da v id Le w is S o c i e ty s h o u ld h a p p e nto se n d a n e x p e d i t io n t o s o m e p l a n e t a n d e n c o u n te r a n a tu r a l Le w is - li k escu lp tu re , then they m igh t , indeed , th ink o f it a s a rep resen ta t ion o f Lew is ,b u t t h a t d o e s n o t s h o w th a t i t wa s a Le wis - r e p re s e n t a t i o n p r io r t o t h e i rc o l le c t iv e ly t r e at i n g i t a s s u c h. W h a t i f t h e p e o p le w h o l a n d e d k n e w n o th in g

Lewis [4 p. 166]i Pu tnam [5 pp. 1-2].


19:0415November2011


7/14

256 Something Less T han Paradise: The M agic of M odern Realismof Lewis? Maybe they migh t r ega rd t he s cu lp tu re a s a r ep re sen ta t i on o fsome human be ing , bu t no t a r ep re sen ta t i on o f Dav id Lewis . Wha t i f t hec rea tu re s who l anded were qu i t e un l ike any l i f e we have encoun te red andthey knew no th ing o f human be ings? Would the s cu lp tu re s t i l l cons t i t u t ea r ep re sen ta t i on o f Dav id Lewis o r o f any human be ing? I t h ink tha t i tw ould not.I t is a s imp le th ing fo r t he F r i ends o f Dav id L ew is - - an t eced en t ly devo ted ,as they a re , to h i s l iken ess - - to th ink tha t the s igni f icance which they a t t r ibu teto the natu ral sc ulpture is l ikew ise natural . But i t is vita l to a thin g s beinga represen ta t ion tha t i t refer to the th ing tha t i t represents , and such re fe re ncedoes not ob ta in s imply in v i r tue of i somorphism, or more broadly ,r e semblance . Wha t i s r equ i r ed i s t he i n t e rven t ion o f one o r more mindsor in ten t iona l sys tems capable o f draw ing a co nnec t ion , no t ic ing a s imi la ri ty ,be tw een or am ong s t th ings. A nd p la in ly , in the k ind o f wo r ld tha t w e inhabi tsuch connec t ions can be d rawn- -whe the r by the i nd iv idua l who i s s t ruckby a ce r t a in l i keness , o r by the g roup wh ich adop t s a conven t ion - -on lyi f t he re ob t a ins some p r io r acqua in t ance wi th t he t h ing r ep re sen ted . Theext ra te r res t r ia l who c la ims to not ice a s imi la r i ty be tween the scu lp ture ofou r exam ple and D av id Lewis , we m igh t expec t, w ill be r ega rde d a s som ew ha teccent r ic by h is , her or i t s peers . I t i s ra ther as though I should suddenlye x c l a im t h at t h e P e a c e T o w e r o f C a n a d a s P a r l ia m e n t B u il di ng s r e m i n d sm e o f glurbledefurb. Clea r ly , on ly t he F r i ends o f Dav id Lew is will r ega rdthe na tura l scu lp ture as a representa t ion of D avid Lewis , and th i s i s becau seon ly t he F r i ends o f Dav id Lewis a r e acqua in t ed e i t he r w i th Lew is o r w i ththe Lewis - r ep re sen ting conven t ion . Wi thou t such acqua in t ance on som eone spar t the na tura l scu lp ture s im ply is no t a represen ta t ion o f Lewis. To supposethat resemblance, in and of i tself , i s suff ic ient to represent is just to bel ievein intr insical ly repre sen tat iona l ent it ies , a lbei t disguised ones.W ha t a ll this suggests is that the pictor ia l ersa tzer s effor ts to av oid theproblem of impl ic i t representa t ion by c l ing ing to i somorphism resu l t in apos it ion wh ich looks r a the r l ike t ha t o f t he m ag ica l e r sa tze r . Th e i somorph i smof p ic to ri a l wor lds p roves to be q u i t e i r re l evan t ; wh a t m ake s a w o rd r ep re sen tcer tain possibi li ties is jus t th e bru te fac t that i t possesses the intr insic prop ertyo f representing those possibilities. What makes t ha t d i s t an t s cu lp tu re arepresenta t ion o f Lew is is tha t i t i s a Lew is- representor .This should g ive pause to the p ic tor ia l e r sa tzer . But we have a l so notedLew is s c la im tha t in t ry ing to avoid the pro blem o f impl ic i t represen ta t ionby f a t ten ing the deg ree o f isomo rph i sm wh ereby p i c to r ia l wor lds r ep re sen t ,the p ic tor ia l e r sa tzer ends up wi th a pos i t ion which looks a grea t dea l l ikegenu ine moda l r ea l i sm. The on ly t h ing wh ich seems to s epa ra t e p i c to r i a lw o r ld s f r o m L e w i s - w o r d s i s th a t t h e f o r m e r a re a l l e g ed t o b e abstract whi lethe l a t te r a r e t aken to be concrete. How ever , as Lew is a rgues conv inc ing ly ,o f fou r possib le t h ings tha t migh t be m ean t by abs t r ac t none can be sa idto apply to p ic tor ia l wor lds and not a l so to Lewis-wor lds , o r to a grea tm an y less e xot ic things. 9 In th at case, a l l those ideal ised pictu res ar e d iff icul t9 Lewisl4 pp. 81-86;pp. 171-174].


19:0415November2011


8/14

Michael ymers 2 5 7to te l l f rom Lewis-wor lds . Now, i f p ic tor ia l wor lds u l t imate ly a re not tha td i f fe ren t f rom m agica l w or lds e i ther , could i t be tha t genu ine mo dal rea l i smcar r ies a h idd en cos t?

III . Th e Il lusion o f Pro gressThe poin t tha t I am arguing for i s a s imple one . I th ink tha t Lewis-wor ldsare in t rins ica lly represen ta t iona l ob jec ts and tha t , therefore , they do noth ingin the w ay of ex pla in ing m odal i ty , l0 Wh at is m ore d i f ficu lt , how ever , isshowing p rec i se ly where i t i s t ha t Lew is com m i t s h imse l f t o an y th ingunreasonable . Wi thout a carefu l reading~of On the Plural ity o f W orlds Lewisends up look ing ve ry much l i ke t he champion o f common sense . Th i s i sm ade poss ib le , I th ink , by the w ay in which h e cons t ruc ts the d ia lec t ic be tw eenhis own pos i t ion and those of the e rsa tzers . Tha t i s why I have , so fa r ,focused la rge ly on a summary of h i s c r i t i c i sms of e rsa tz i sm. But scarce lyhave we pu t t he s t age - se tt ing in p l ace , when we r ea l is e t ha t t he pe r fo rm anceseems to have got ten s ta r ted u nd er our noses .W hen Lew is conc ludes tr i umph an t ly tha t t he p i c to ri a l e r sa t ze r migh t a swell be a ge nuine m oda l rea li s t, and w hen he sha kes a f inger a t the m agica le rsa tzer for em brac ing represen ta t iona l proper t ies , wh ich to us seem ut te r lymy sterious , w e a re le f t w i th the i llusion tha t som e sor t o f progress has beenmade . And th i s i l lus ion i s made poss ib le by no less than a three-wayequ ivocat ion on the m ean ing o f r ep re sen ta ti on . Lewis h im se l f suggest s t ha tthere is a dou ble-sens e in which e rsa tz wor lds might be sa id to represent :

(1 ) They a r e r ep re sen ta t i ons , so t ha t i t somehow makes sense t o speakof wha t i s t he ca se according to t hem; and the reby (2 ) t hey a r erepresenta t ives , t ak ing the p lace o f wha t they purpor t to represen t . ttBut there i s ye t another sor t o f representa t ion h id ing here , and i t i s to bedis tinguished by w hat i t is tha t i s represented . Lewis th inks tha t e rsa tz w or ldsrepresent possibilities w he re possibi li ties are som ethin g l ike Lew is-worlds;but becau se the e rsa tze r hopes to avoid Le wis-wo r lds , these representa t ionsalso take the place of Lewis -wor lds . They se rve a s r ep re sen ta t i ves o rde l ega t es . A t t he s a m e t ime , howeve r , the re a r e good r ea sons fo r t h ink ingtha t e rsa t z wor lds r ep re sen t - -o r pe rhaps m / s r ep re sen t - - t he ac tua l wor ld . A tone poin t Lewis ra i ses th is fur ther d i st inc t ion: . . . as i s, there i s no th ingthey [ e r sa t z w or lds ] r ep re sen t co r r ec t ly . The y mis r ep re sen t t he co nc re t e w or ldt0 The poin t tha t Lew is s pos i t ion fa il s to expla in mod al i ty as m uch as e rsa tz i sm does hasbeen m ade by Bige low and Parg e t te r [ l , pp . 110-1 13l . T hey reason as tu te ly tha t , inasmuchas Lew is-wor lds can be rega rded as l ive per form ance [s l [ l , p . 110] of linguis tic e rsa tzworlds, they seem to presu ppos e m oda l notions no less than d o ersatz w orlds. The consistencywhich L ewis-w or lds must have in orde r to represent mo dal i t ies i s a cons is tency of the mo dalfac ts repre sente d- - tha t they could b e t rue toge ther , . jus t as w i th e rsa tz w or lds . H ow ever ,the cons is tency tha t Lewis ascr ibes to h is wor lds i s no more than the cons is tency requi redof any exis t ing th ing . T hat the la t te r sense of cons is tency suff ices to rep lace the form erwithout mod al presuppositions m ust be shown, not assumed. T o assum e i t , I would add,is to rely on intrinsically representational objects.i i L ew is[4 , p. ] :37].


19:0415November2011


9/14

258 Som ething Less T han Paradise= The M agic of M odern Realismas i t i sU 2 But th i s sense o f represe nta t ion then se em s to d i sapp ear f romhis d iscuss ion , and i t s d i sappe aranc e i s o f cons iderable impor tanc e .W hich o f t he se t ypes o f rep re sen ta t i on is r e l evan t t o m oda l i t y? P r/maf a c i e t he r ep re sen ta t i on of possibi l i t ies seems c lose ly t i ed to modal i ty .However , there i s a t l eas t one way in which i t i s qu i te c ruc ia l tha t e rsa tzwor lds r ep re sen t i n t he s ense o f mi s r ep re sen t ing the ac tua l wor ld - - th i s i st he ca se o f de re modali ty . When we inquire into the possibi l i ty of , e .g . ,H um ph rey s w inning the e lec t ion , we are inves tiga t ing , no t jus t a poss ib il ity ,but a possibility f o r H u m p h r e y . And if a world is to represent a possibi l i tyf o r H u m p h r e y , it m u s t s o m e h o w r e p r e s e n t H u m p h r e y . Othe rwi se , we haveno r ea son to suppose t ha t we a r e dea l ing wi th de re moda l i t y ; we seemmere ly to be inves t iga t ing the poss ib i l i ty tha t someone who f i t s l a rge par t so f a com prehens ive Hum phrey -desc r ip t i on m igh t have been v i cto rious, andi t is un c l ea r wh y tha t wo u ld be o f i n te r e s t to H um phrey , t he de fea t ed .So , i f we a re to have de re modal i ty , then representa t iona l t i es mus t bema in t a ined wi th t he ac tua l wor ld . Bu t a cu r ious t h ing happens i n Chap te r3 o f On the P lura l i t y o f Wor lds - -v i z . these representa t iona l t i es which a renee ded for de re m oda l i ty a re cu t in the d ia lec t ica l t rans it ion f rom l inguis ticersa tz i sm through p ic tor ia l and m agica l e rsa tz i sm to genuine mo dal rea li sm.Let me t ry to c la r i fy th i s po in t . As fa r as de re modal i ty goes , there donot seem to be any spec ia l p roblem s for the l inguis t ic e rsa tzer . A l inguis tice r sa t z wor ld can r ep re sen t t he poss ib i l i t y t ha t Humphrey cou ld have wonthe el ec ti on simp ly by con ta in ing the s en t ence H um phrey wins the e l ec t i on - -o r s o m e t h in g s i m i l a r - - a n d p r e s e rv i n g t h e c o n v e n ti o n w h e r e b y H u m p h r e yre fe r s to Hu m phrey . How ever , r eca l l t ha t w hen we l eave l ingu is ti c e r sa t z ismand seek r e fuge in p ic to ri a l e r sa tz i sm we a re boun d by L ewis t o r enouncethe ev i l o f conven t ion in o rde r to avoid the p roblem of impl ic i t representat ion .Pic tor ia l wor lds represent so le ly by i somorphism, and i f they representH um phrey s w inn ing the e l ec ti on , t hen they do tha t by i som orph i sm, too.But, as I hav e a rgue d , isom orphism i s no t suf f ic ien t for repre sen ta t ion - -and so, pictor ia l worlds cannot represent any sor t of possibi l i ty , includingpossibi l ity de re.The r ea son tha t i t l ooks a s t hough p rog res s has been made he re i s t ha tLew is has ceased to t a lk abo u t r ep re sen t ing the ac tua l w or ld and has sh if tedto a d i scuss ion of represent ing Lewis-wor lds by means of e rsa tz wor lds ,par t icu la r ly in the sense o f se rv ing as representa t ives or de lega tes for Lewis-wor lds . C lea r ly , Le w is -w or ld s - - i f such th ings t he re be - - a r e a s m uch f it f o rthe t a sk o f s e rv ing a s t he i r own r ep re sen ta t i ves a s wou ld be any p roxy-vot ing p ic tor ia l wor ld . Al l th i s , however , says noth ing of whether or no t - -as the poss /b il/a tha t Lew is-wor lds a re supposed to be- - t he y can represento r re fer to t hemse lves , l e t a lone whe the r o r no t t hey can mi s r ep re sen t t heac tua l wor ld .I f it is rea l ly the case tha t p ic tor ia l e r sa tz ism col lapses in to gen uine m odalr ea l ism, t he n - - i f genu ine m oda l r ea l ism i s to be w or th t he go ing p r i ce - -12 L ew is [4 p . 137].


19:0415November2011


10/14

M ichael Hym ers 259one o f two th ings mus t happen . E i the r ( i ) t he move f rom p ic to r i a l wor ldsto Lew is -wor lds m us t r e - e s tab l ish t he r ep re sen ta t iona l conne c t ion wi th t heac tua l w or ld , wh ich was l os t in t he m ove to r ep re sen ta t i on by i somorph i sm,o r ( ii) Lew is mus t o f f e r som e indepen den t a rgum en t fo r why i t is t ha t Lew is -w orlds succ eed in repre sen t ing possibi li ties w he re pictor ia l worlds andm agica l ones fai l. B ar r ing the fu l f i lm ent of th is d i s junc t ive condi t ion , Lewismu s t con cede tha t L ewis -wor lds fo l low p i c to ri a l wor lds in to t he da rk andm agica l rea lm of in t r ins ica l ly represen ta t iona l en tit ies.S ince Lewis neve r s eems to c onc ede tha t r ep re sen ta t i on -by- isom orph i smis an i ssue , i t i s no t surpr i s ing tha t there i s no h in t of the sor t o f movecha rac t e r i s ed by the f i rs t op tion a nyw here i n Lew is s d is cuss ion o f e r sat z ismor o f h i s own coun te rpa r t t heo ry , wh ich fo l lows in Chap te r 4 . I ndeed ,counterpar t re lat ions are based on s /m//ar / ty . There is , though, a cr i t ic ismin answer t o wh ich Lewis o f f e r s u s some th ing wh ich has t he mak ings o fa sa t i s fac tory a rgu m en t in the spir it o f (ii ). This i s a c r i t ic i sm o f coun terpar ttheory , and as w e sha l l see , representa t ion l ies a t th e bo t tom of i t.

IV . The M ag ic o f Cou n te rpa r t sPh i lo sophe r s who hav e no t been a s anx ious t o en t e r pa rad i se a s Lew is havethough t t he p r i ce o f genu ine m oda l r ea li sm too h igh to pay f rom the s t ar t.On e focu s o f c r it ic i sm has been Lewis s coun te rpa r t t heo ry , wh ich he t ou tsa s an a l t e rna t ive t o t he v i ew tha t when we make de re modal i ty c la ims ,we c om m it ourse lves to som e ac tua l ind iv idua l s ex is tence a t a noth er poss ib le( e r sa t z ) wor ld . To make a de re m o d a l it y c l a i m - - e .g . , H u m p h r e y c o u ldhave w on the e l ec t i on - - i s t o s ay tha t i n som e o the r w or ld Hum phrey scoun te rpa r t d /d w in the e l ec t ion , bu t H um phrey h imse l f does no t ex i st a ttha t w or ld . Saul Kr ipk e takes a im a t th is fea ture of m oda l rea l i sm in N a m i n gand Necessi ty

P r o b a b l y . . . H u m p h r e y co u l d n o t c a r e l ess w h e t h e r so m e o n e e /re , n om a t t e r how m uch r e sem bl ing h im, wou ld have been v i c to r ious i n ano the rpo ssible w orld . 13This ought to sou nd fami l ia r . In a rguing ab ove tha t de re m o d a l i t y d e m a n d sthe preserva t ion of representa t iona l t i es be tween poss ib le wor lds and theac tua l wor ld , I sugges t ed tha t H um phre y wou ld no t ca re w he th e r o r no ta n o t h e r w o r ld r e p r e se n t e d t h a t s o m e o n e w h o r e s e m b l e d h i m i n m a n y w a y swon the e l ec t i on . Wha t ma t t e r s i s t ha t ano the r wor ld r ep re sen t Humphreyh/mse/ f in represe nt ing the poss ib i li ty tha t he m ight h ave bee n v ic tor ious .Now , th is is no t qu i te Kr ipke s com pla in t . K r ipke i s upse t tha t H um phre yhim sel f i s no t a p a r t of t he poss ib l e wo r ld wh ich r ep re sen t s h im as w inn ingthe e lec tion . But I suspec t tha t the wo rry about rep resenta t ion i s rea lly whatunder l ies Kr ipke s c r i ti c ism. W hat Kr ipk e w ants i s a reaso n for th inkingt h at a H u m p h r e y - r e s e m b l e r h a s s o m e t h in g t o d o w i th H u m p h r e y a n d w i t hwha t i s pos s ib l e fo r Humphrey . Bu t we need no t t r ansp l an t o r ex t end3 K r i pke [2 p . 45 n l 3 l .


19:0415November2011


11/14

260 Something Les s Than Paradise: The Magic of M odern R~dismHu m phrey to ano the r w or ld in o rd e r t o s a ti sfy th i s conce rn abou t r e l evance .Al l we need to do i s show tha t t ha t o the r wor ld makes some r e f e r enceto H um phre y , i .e ., tha t i t represents Hu m phrey .

I f we ne glec t the ques t ion of how i t i s tha t de re possibili ties ge t rep rese nte d,then L ewis s response to K r ipke looks qui te sa t i s fac tory , beca use he m ain ta instha t t he wor ld i n wh ich H um phrey s cou n te rpa r t w ins t he e l ec t i on does ,i ndeed , r ep re sen t o f Humphrey tha t he wins t he e l ec t i on . E r sa t ze r s andcoun te rpa r t t heo r is t s do no t d i sag ree t ha t o the r w or lds r ep re sen t Hu m phreyas winning the e lec t ion ; they s imply d isagree about how th is representa t iont akes p l ace . Thus , Lewis s eems to s a t i s fy t he demand tha t de re m o d a l i t ymain ta in representa t iona l l inks wi th the ac tua l wor ld . But the rea l ques t ionhere jus t i s h o w tha t happens . A cco rd ing to Lewis it i s by co nta in ing su i tab lecons t i tuents in the case o f l inguis tic and p ic tor ia l e r sa tz i sm, as wel l as genuinem oda l r ea li sm, o r pe rhaps by m ag ic 14 in t he ca se o f mag ica l e r sa t zi sm.I n p a r t i c u l a r a Lewis -wor ld supposed ly r ep re sen t s o f Humphrey tha t hec o u l d h a v e w o n t h e e l e c ti o n b y c o n ta i n in g a c o u n t e r p a r t o f H u m p h r e y w h odoe s win.Wha t makes i t t he ca se t ha t a wor ld con ta ins such a coun te rpa r t ? Wel l ,t ha t has t o do wi th wh e the r o r no t i t con ta ins an i nd iv idua l who resemblesH u m p h r e y , m u c h as a m u s e u m m i g h t c o n t a in a w a x w o r k f i g u re o r a nan im a ted s imu lac rum . Bu t ano the r wor ld can ou tdo M ine. Tussaud s andDisney Wor ld a li ke , f o r i t c an con ta in a f l e sh -and-b lood coun te rpa r t whois very l ike H um ph rey in h i s or ig ins , in h i s in tr ins ic cha rac te r , o r in h ishis tor ical role , Lewis te l ls us . By having such a part, a world representsde re , concerning H u m p h r e y . . . tha t he exist s an d does thus .and-so . 'I sThis , too , ought to sound fami l ia r , for i t i s an echo of the noise tha t

has a l r eady been m ade ove r t he co l l apse o f p ic to ri a l e rsa t z ism in to genu inemodal rea l i sm. But , a las , there i s no answer here to the ques t ion of howi t i s t ha t a wor ld manages t o r ep re sen t Humphrey , s imp ly by inc lud ingsom e th ing w h ich r e sembles h im. A l l we a r e o f f e r ed i s the a s se rt ion tha ta w or ld s possess ing a re sem bler is suf f ic ien t for i ts possessing a representor ,an d this , I ha ve argu ed, is fa lse .I t migh t be ob j ec t ed tha t , in f ac t , t he re a r e c l ea r examp les o f r e semblancebeing suf f ic ien t for representa t ion . I f I kno w tha t on e p iec e of l i tm us paper ,P , t u rns r ed when immersed in ac id a t t ime , t , t hen su re ly I am jus t i f i edin be l iev ing tha t another p iece of l i tmus paper , P* , would turn red i f i twere immersed in acid. P represents a possibi l i ty for P* s imply in vir tueo f r e sembl ing P* in ce r t a in w ays . L ikew ise fo r H um phrey and h is coun te rpa rt .Such p rompt s f rom backs t age wi l l no t r e scue the pe r fo rmance . No t i ce ,firs t, t h a t it i s no t m ere r e sem blance , bu t t he no t i c ing o f a r e semb lancetha t i s re levan t to P s represent ing anyth ing . Mo reover , the appro pr ia te k indof r e semblance he re i s due t o t he f ac t t ha t P and P* be long to t he s amena tu ra l k ind , and the re a r e on ly two p r i m a f a c i e p laus ib le wa ys o f e luc ida ting1 4 L e w i s [ 4 p . 1 9 6 ] .15 L e w i s 14 p . 1 9 4 ] ; m y e m p h a s i s .


19:0415November2011


12/14

Michael Hym ers 261th is . On e w a y i s t o a p p e a l t o m o d a l f a c t s a b o u t P a n d P * - - e . g . , i f P i simmersed in ac id , then P wi l l tu rn red . Such an appea l i s b la tan t ly c i rcu la rin t h e p r e s e n t c o n t e x t. Th e s e c o n d wa y , r e f l e c te d i n Le w is s a c c o u n t o fnatura l prope r t ies , ~6 is to em br ac e a ro bus t rea l ism ab ou t universa ls . Bu tth i s s e rv e s o n ly t o r e p l a c e o n e k in d o f my s t e r io u s e n t i t y (Le wis -wo r ld s )wi th ano the r ( so -ca l led na tu ra l p roper t ie s ) , fo r Le w is esch ew s de f in ingproper t ie s in te rms o f the i r nomolog ica l ro les (which would be an i l l i c i ta p p e a l t o mo d a l f a c t s a n y wa y ) . Th a t a mo u n t s t o s a y in g t h a t t h e p o s s e s s io no f p ro p e r ti e s i s a b ru t e me ta p h y s i c a l f a c t, q u i t e i n d e p e n d e n t o f c a u s a ld i spos i t ions . Bu t then , the a l leged fac t tha t P rep resen ts a poss ib i l i ty fo rP * w i ll a l s o b e a b ru t e m e ta p h y s i c a l f a c t, wh ic h i s j u s t t o s a y th a t P - -o r ra the r , some p roper ty o f P - - i s in t r ins ica l ly rep resen ta t iona l .K r ipke s i s no t the on ly c r i ti c i sm of Lew is s pos i t ion tha t i s mot iva tedu l t ima te ly b y a c o n c e rn a b o u t r e p r e s e n ta t io n . Co n s id e r t h e fo l l o win g a t ta c k .Ev e n i f we a r e w i l l i n g t o g r a n t f o r p u rp o s e s o f d e b a t e t h a t t h e r e a r e s u c hth in g s a s Le wis -wo r ld s , wh y s h o u ld we s u p p o s e t h a t t h e s e wo r ld s h a v eany th ing to do wi th possibility Why a re they no t , r a the r , ju s t add i t iona lpa r t s o f ac tua l i ty tha t we ha d p rev ious ly fa iled to take no t ice o f? . W i thou tadd ing represen ta t iona l i s sues to the p ic tu re Lew is s re sponse to th is ob jec t ionis a l ready no t e spec ia l ly com pel l ing . H e rep lie s tha t the com pla in t tha t L ew is -wo r ld s h a v e n o th in g t o d o w i th m o d a l i t y d e p e n d s o n t h e c l a im th a t e v e ry th in gtha t ex is t s i s ac tua l and tha t he does no t be l ieve tha t eve ry th ing i s ac tua l - -o the r p oss ib le wor lds , fo r exam ple .

O f course , a s he conced es , th is invo lves us ing ac tua l in a d i f fe ren t sensef rom tha t in w hich i t is used by p ro pon en ts o f th is c r i t i c i sm? 7 Bu t ignor ingth i s we a k n e s s , we c a n me e t Le wis o n h i s o wn t e rms , o n c e we r e c o g n i s ewha t under l ie s the p reced ing c r i t i c i sm. What concerned Kr ipke , I sugges ted ,w a s w h a t m a d e H u m p h r e y s c o u n t e r p a r t r e l e v an t t o w h a t i s p os s ib l e f o rHu mp h re y . By th e s a me to k e n , t h e a c tu a l i s t wa n t s t o k n o w wh a t ma k e sLe wis -wo r ld s r e l e v a n t t o wh a t i s p o s s ib l e f o r t h e wo r ld a s a wh o le . Bu tin o rde r to a sk th i s ques t ion , we need no t a sse r t tha t eve ry th ing i s ac tua l - -even i f , a s ac tua l i s ts , we b e l ieve tha t . Le t us a l low L ew is tha t n o t eve ry th ingi s a c t u a l . W h a t w e w a n t t o k n o w i s w h a t m a k e s L e w i s - w o r l d s r e l e v a n tto wh a t i s poss ib le fo r the w or ld as i t is , and th is i s jus t an e lab ora te easeo f d e re mo d a l i t y . I s t h e a n s we r g o in g t o b e t h a t Le wis -wo r ld s representposs ib i l i t i e s fo r the ac tua l wor ld? Tha t would ce r ta in ly be an accep tab lea n s we r , b u t n o w we o u g h t t o b e c u r io u s a b o u t h o w i t i s t h a t Le wis -wo r ld srepresen t the ac tu a l w or ld . I f the response he re i s tha t they rep resen t thea c tu a l wo r ld b e c a u s e t h e y resemble t h e a c tu a l wo r ld , t h e n o n c e a g a in weare conf ron ted wi th mys te r ious in ten t iona l ob jec t s , whose ve ry na tu re i t i sto rep resen t . A nd tha t i s no exp lana t ion o f moda l i ty .

Th e b e s t t h a t we c a n s a y fo r Le wis -wo r ld s a n d c o u n te rp a r t s i s t h a t i ft h e r e a r e a n y , t h e n we c o u ld a lwa y s c h o o s e t o regard them as poss ib i l i t ies .~ S e e L e w i s [3 ] .17 S e e L e w i s [ 4 p p . 9 7 - 1 0 1 ] .


19:0415November2011


13/14

262 Something le ss Than Paradise The Magic of M odern RealismW e c o u ld a d o p t a c o n v e n t io n wh e re b y a wo r ld c o n t a in in g a Hu mp h re y -r e s e m b l e r i p so f a c t o c o n ta in e d a Hu mp h re y - r e p re s e n to r . Bu t t h e n Le wis -wo r ld s a n d c o u n te rp a r t s wo u ld n o t b e p o ss ib il it ie s in a n d o f t h e ms e lv e s .On ly t h e b e s to w in g v i r tu e o f o u r c o n v e n t io n s c o u ld g iv e s u c h l i fe to w o r ld sa n d l e s s e r i n d iv id u a l s , a n d we c o u ld a s e a s i l y b e s to w th i s l i f e o n mo req u o t id i a n o b j e c t s w i th o u t p o s i ti n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f m y r i a d d i s c o n n e c t e dspa t io - tem pora l rea lms . ~s

In s o m e p a s s a g e s Le w is wr i t e s a s t h o u g h s u c h a c o n s t ru a l o f t h e c o u n te rp a r tr e l a t i o n - - i f n o t s o c l e a rly o f wo r ld s t h e m s e lv e s - - i s j u s t wh a t h e i s e s p o us ing :

[T]he res t r ic t ing o f moda l i t i e s by access ib i l i ty o r coun te rpa r t r e la t ions ,l ike the res t ric t ing o f quan t i f ie r s genera l ly , i s a ve ry f lu id so r t o f a f fa i r.i n c o n s t a n t , s o me wh a t i n d e t e rmin a t e , a n d s u b j e c t t o i n s t a n t c h a n g e i nresponse to con tex tua l p ressu res . No t any th ing goes , bu t a g rea t dea ld o e s . An d to a s u b s ta n t ia l e x t e n t, s a y in g s o ma k e s i t s o . . . ~ 9

Th i s m a k e s i t s o u n d a s t h o u g h th e t r u th -v a lu e s o f c la ims a b o u t d e re mo d a l i t ya r e s o m e h o w d e p e n d e n t u p o n a c o m m u n i t y o f s p ea k e rs , th a t d e re m o d a l i tyi s s o me h o w s u b je c t i v e , o r i n t e r s u b j e c t i v e . A t o n e p o in t P u tn a m s e e ms tor e a d Le wis a s h o ld in g j u s t s u c h a v i e w - - th a t ' [t ]h e s im i l a ri t y m e t r i c [ f orwo r ld s a n d c o u n te rp a r ts ] i s . . . a s u b j e c ti v e me t r i c , '2 0 - - a n d h e a t t a c k s h imo n th e g ro u n d s t h a t o n e c a n n o t b o th h o ld a r e a li s t a c c o u n t o f t ru th fo rc o u n te r f a c tu a l c o n d i t i o n a ls a n d s u b s c r ib e to a k in d o f a n t i -r e a l is m a b o u tde re modal i ty .Bu t Lew is la te r h in t s tha t sub jec t iv i ty en te rs the p ic tu re in a s l igh t ly d i ffe ren tway . There / s an ob jec t ive s imi la rhy met r ic ; in fac t , the re a re many , andwh ic h o n e i s r e l e v a n t is a ma t t e r o f t h e c o n t e x t i n wh ic h a q u e s t io n o fm o d a l i t y i s ra i se d : ' t h e r i g h t w a y o f r ep r e s e n t in g i s d e t e rmin e d , o r p e rh a p sunde rde te rm ined , by con tex t ' . 21 I f th i s i s the case , then w e a re ba ck toc o n ju rin g m a g ic a l r e p r e se n to r s, b u t w h a t i s wo r s e is t h a t t h e y m a y r e p re s en tm a n y d i f fe r e n t t h in g s i n v i r tu e o f th e m a n y d i f fe r e n t cr i te r ia o f r e s e mb la n c et o w h i ch t h e y c o n f o rm . T h i s is a v i e w o f th e w o r l d - - a n d m a n y o t h e r s - -a c c o rd in g t o wh ic h , a s P u tn a m s a y s i n a l a t e r c ri ti c is m o f Le wis , ' th e wo r ldi s l ike a m ind , o r imb ued wi th so m eth ing ve ry m uch l ike reason ' . 22

M o re o v e r , i f t h e r e a r e m a n y - - in d e f in i t e ly m a n y - - s im i l a r i t y me t r ic s ,r e l at i v e t o wh ic h w e c o u ld a s s e s s c la ims o f d e r e mo d a l i t y , t h e n wh y s h o u ldwe th in k t h a t a n y c a s e w i ll f a ll o u t s id e t h e ' g r e a t r a n g e o f c a s e s ' f o r wh ic hthe re i s ' no d e te rm ina te r igh t answ er ' ? 23 Sure ly , fo r an y s imi la r ity m et r icth a t L e wis s u p p l i e s in o rd e r t o a s s e s s a c l aim o f d e re modal i ty , the re i sa n o th e r me t r i c wh o s e s e l e c t i o n wo u ld a s s ig n a d i f f e r e n t t r u th -v a lu e t o t h a tis Ev en this is to gran t too much, for it presupposes hat w e hav e some kind of acquaintancewith other worlds, ndependently of our knowing modal facts.1 9 L e w i s 1 4 p . 8 ] .2o P u t n a m [ 6 p . 6 1 ] .21 L e w is [ 4 p . 251 ] .22 P u t n a m [ 7 p . 2 1 8 ] . M u c h o f th e a r g u m e n t o f t h e p r es e n t p a p e r w a s s u g g e s t e d t o m e b yt r y i n g t o i n t e r p r e t t h i s r e m a r k .23 L e w is [ 4 p . 251 ] .


19:0415November2011


14/14

Michael Hymers 2 6 3c l aim , a n d wh ic h mig h t we l l s e e m r e l e v a n t t o L e wis s in t e rlo c u to r . W h a ti s i t tha t makes one o f these s imi la r i ty met r ic s the c o r r e c t o n e ? I t c a n n o tbe tha t w e agree on w ha t i s re levan t , becau se tha t sac r i f ices a real i st acco un to f d e r e modal i ty and coun te r fac tua l cond i t iona ls . Bu t then i t mus t be s implytha t in con tex t , C , s imi la r i ty met r ic , M, j u s t i s the one tha t ma t te r s . No to n ly a r e Le w is -wo r ld s i n tr i n si c a ll y r e p r e s e n t a ti o n a l , b u t s o m e a r e m o rerepresen ta t iona l than o the rs .

I t s e e ms , t h e n, t h a t L e wis m u s t f a c e a d i l e mm a . E i t h e r L e w i s -w o r l d s a r ep o s sib il it ie s s imp ly b e c a u s e w e m a y c h o o s e t o r e g a rd t h e m a s s u c h , i n wh ic hc a s e i t i s u n c l e a r h o w th e y e x p la in mo d a l i t y a n d , h e n c e , wh y we s h o u ldbe l ieve tha t th e re a re such th ings ; o r Lewis -wor lds a re poss ib i l i t i e s in ando f t h e ms e lv e s , i n wh ic h c a s e w e s e e m to b e e x p l a in in g m o d a l i t y b y re s o r ti n gto s o me th in g e v e n m o re m y s t e r io u s - - i n tr i n s i c a l ly r e p r e s e n ta t io n a l o b j e c ts .Th e p e r fo rma n c e i s q u i t e p l a y e d o u t . An d , i n d e e d , i t wa s n e v e r mo reth an a p e r fo rm a n c e , r e ly in g o n t h e s u s p e n s io n o f o u r d i s b e l i e f i n r e p r e se n t a t io nb y r e se m b la n c e . Th e p r i c e o f g e n u in e m o d a l r e a l i sm i s m u c h to o c lo se t oth e c o s t d e m a n d e d b y t h e p i c to r i a l e r sa t z e r s a n d t h e ma g ic i a ns . Bu t d u r in gth e s h o w we h a v e a l s o n o t e d t h a t n o b r a n d o f er s a tz i s m is q u it e wh a t i tp u rp o r t s t o b e e i t h e r - -v / z , a n e x p la n a t io n o f mo d a l i t y . M o d a l n o t io n s re ma inp r io r t o p o s s ib le wo r ld s, a n d t h e c o n s u m e r h a d b e s t b e c o n t e n t w i th a p ro d u c twhich p romises someth ing le ss than pa rad ise , and requ i res someth ing le ssthan m ag ic. 24U n i v e r s i t y o f A l b e r t a R e c e i v e d J u ly 1 9 9 0

R E F E R E N C E S1. J. Bigeiow an d R. Pargetter, 'Bey ond the Blan k Stare ' , Theor/a 53 (19 87) pp. 9 7-1 14 .2. S. A. Kripke, Nam ing and Necessity(Cam br idge , MA : Harvard Univers i ty Press, 1980).3 . D . K. Lewis , 'New Work for a Theory of Universa l s ' , Australasian Jour nal o f Philosophy

61 (1983) pp . 343-377.4. D. K. Lewis, On the Piurafity o f Wodd~ (Oxford: Biackwell, 1987).5 . H . Putnam , Reason, Truth and History(Cam br idge: Cam br idge Univers i ty Press, 1981).6. H . Pu tna m , 'Possibility an d Necessity' in Rea lism and ReasotL Philosophical Papers, Volume3 (Cam br idge: Cam br idge Un ivers ity Press, 1983) pp . 46-6 8.7 . H. Putn am , W hy There I sn ' t a R eady-M ade W or ld ' , in Rea// sm an d Reason, /b/d. , pp . 205 -228 .

24 I have ben efi ted from discussions at Da lhou sie Univ ersi ty an d the Un iversi ty of A lberta.Special thank s to Ti lm an Lichter , Bern ard Linsky, and D un can Macintosh. Th an ks alsoto the editorial panel and referees at the Australasian Jour nal o f Philosophy for helpfulcom m ents and to the Socia l Sc iences and H um ani t i es Research Co unci l of Ca nad a for thesuppor t o f t he ir D oc to ra l Fe l low sh i p p r og r am m e dur i ng t he 198 8- 89 and 98 9- 9 0 academ i cyears.


19:0415November2011

Hymers - The Magic of Modal Realism

Documents

Transcript of Hymers - The Magic of Modal Realism