Blog for Nameless-Value

novel, essay, poetry, criticism, diary

Does Substance Exist? Is Existence Absolute? Inquiry to Definitive Logics in Substantial World Cognition

Probably Logics could not evidence the substance’s really existing, but at least some credible approach to its inquiry must be provided by it.


Plausible as its adjective definition consists in not only so dubiously pretentious device by false claimer tries to persuade somebody, but also in very skeptical seen in judging some matters more than alternative, but actually that would be so credible, then we can certainly choose latter definitive script in this debate.


David Lewis’s philosophical and logical light motive would be plausible evidence that we could never deny all twin or plural world existence at least through our logic ideas, and with referring it, he tried to make us notice all ambiguous misapprehension we are apt to take in daily life, at this term, he would be regarded as the philosopher typed to Wittgenstein.


However, he suggested that the plurality of world must never be denied by not only logic inspection, but also existing inspection, in this term, he is skeptic.


There, we should go onto directly David Lewis scripts we can regard as deserving so essentially integral, so immediately now.


This essay is objected only to guide the readers of On the Plurality of Worlds in convincing that paper’s main intention, the very precise explication logic process all would be abbreviated so plainly, that thing should be left to all readers to it, for the present. Then, plainly I expediently do so, readers of it, please read all sentences including of very many parts I expediently neglected, and if you would have some objective points to my explication, please mention to me, honestly, directly.




1.3 Modal Realism at Work: Closeness


✴David is proposing several questionable suggestion in inquiry of 1.solution to notional idealization and its meeting, 2. probability to be selected particular world as dimensional phase, 3.closeness to real world as structural model made by us in explicating in arbitration with intuitive judgement, and 4.its justificative possibility, questioning former things’ applicable possibility to counterfactuals’ analysis, and 5. indicative conditional method’s justificatory character,


“A challenge which goes deeper, and which does question the utility of bringing possible worlds into the story, goes as follows. Here is our world, which has certain qualitative character. ( in as broad a sense of ‘qualitative’ as may be requiredーinclude irreducible causal relations, laws, chances, and whatnot if you believe in them. )There are all the various Aーworlds, with their various characters. Some of them are closer are closer to our world than others. If some (A-and-C)-world is closer to be our world than any (A-and-not-C)-world is, that’s what makes the counterfactual true at our world. Now whether or not this closeness ought to be called similarity, still somehow it’s a character of the worlds in question. It’s the character of world that makes some A-worlds be closer to it than others. So, after all, it’s the character of our world that makes the counterfactual true – in which case why bring the other worlds into the story at all.


To which I reply that is indeed the character of our world that makes the counterfactual true. The other worlds into the story that we can say in any concise way what character it takes to make what counterfactual true. The other worlds provide a frame of reference whereby we can characterize our world. By placing our world within this frame, we can say just as much about its character as is relevant to the truth of counterfactual : our world is such as to make an (A -and- C)- world closer to it than any (A – and- not-C)-world is.”




David’s method is seen regarded as reflective balancing by professional analytical philosophers generally, then that is either refracted, but it would be necessary in terms of philosophers’ mission, because they need to doubt all matters seen common sense. As its evidence, David applies the attitude to doubt not only plausible world’s way to be, but also our usually generally believing world as said to be our world. That is philosophical orthodox idea, by the way these sentences having frequently counterfactuals, he ever addressed that proposition, that was either so precise, then just now we should be noticed that counterfactual means our attitude never to be satisfied any now situation, and regret must cover us, but simultaneously we can proceed on a base of future aspect, and be conscious about own presence, that debating premise, we should keep in mind.


This very important suggestive parts of description tells us that A and C cognition is seen close to our real daily stance, rather with it, we could choose one thing even at alternative, if we have nothing to it, we’d be perplexed in going to next step, then counterfactual itself is never decision. That is thinking experiment of us tacitly anybody recognize in daily life.


This very integrally suggesting proposition must deduce that our future must be made by reflective mind to the past of us, but this series must go on, never cease so early, then very minimal conclusion, if I now take, it would be that David is showing one definitive judging is what we must abstain from, but this analyzing possibility given to us by itself suggests us that we have plurality around world recognition, and it either would open another possibility that the sole world itself might be an illusion, and moreover, worlds as our definite understanding could be feasible.


Next stage will be about description he made at 1.4 Modal Realism at Work: Content. Very fast stepping, and either left and never solved parts are so many here, but we’d never be able to do it all so clearly, and it could be unnecessary, we need either picking up only necessary thing for us, otherwise now us.


(to be continued)


Memo; David Lewis is the US philosopher,(Sep.28th. 1942- Oct. 14th. 2001) BLACKWELL PUBLISHERS On the Plurality of Worlds. Reference to 現代形而上学 分析哲学が問う、人・因果・存在の謎 鈴木生郎・秋葉剛史・谷川卓・倉田創、新曜社。


This time debate contains the another truth that our conviction or kind of certainty or credibility is sustained with probability and its inspection on mind, that thing is told at that David’s sentences, either this point is so important to us.


(July. 31st. 2020)