We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Possible worlds have revolutionised philosophy and some related fields. But, in recent years, tools based on possible worlds have been found to be limited in many respects. Impossible worlds have been introduced to overcome these limitations. This Element aims to raise and answer the neglected question of what is characteristically impossible about impossible worlds. The Element sheds new light on the nature of impossible worlds. It also aims to analyse the main features and utility of impossible worlds and examine how impossible worlds can capture distinctions which are unavailable if we limit ourselves to possible world-based tools.
One difficulty with Lewis’s logics favourite systems, S1–S3, is that they have no intuitive semantics or proof theory. Another approach to constructing a logic of entailment is to begin with a semantic intuition and then adopt the logic characterized by the semantics. This is the approach of Carnap’s Meaning and Necessity. On Carnap’s view, entailment is just strict implication in the sense of the logic S5. The chapter examines Carnap’s semantics and its successor developed by Nino Cocchiarella, and finds that whereas they may give a good representation of the notion of logical truth, they do not provide an adequate analysis of entailment. Once again, the problem of implosion and nested entailments are problematic. This chapter also looks at attempts to solve these difficulties using worlds at which the logical truths differ, and raises philosophical worries about them.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.