0

AFAIK, according to the counterpart theory, it is true of me that I could have lived a different life, if my counterpart in another possible world did live a different life. But where is it true that I have counterparts? It seems not to be true in just one world, but how (according to the background modal realism) can it be true in multiple worlds? Or is this one of those cases where there is an important difference between true-at-a-world and true-in-a-world?

(My objection/confusion might be framed in terms of the phrase "possible counterpart." Again AFAIK, no object in the actual world is my counterpart except (weirdly) myself. So no other object in the actual world is my counterpart in some other possible world, obviously. But then how would we make sense of the phrase? Are my counterparts necessarily my counterparts? But they're not my counterparts in every possible world besides in the sense that all of them together are; but doesn't the background theory have it that the arbitrary mereological sums spanning the plurality of worlds, though they exist, perforce lack actuality?)

Kristian Berry
  • 13,937
  • 2
  • 13
  • 40
  • 1
    Good observation. But it is true not just of the counterpart relation specifically, but of accessibility, satisfaction, transworld identity, etc., relations and the rest of modal machinery generally. See Forster, Modal Aether, p.6, which is his nickname for all of that, it subsists in the aether:"I argue that if possible worlds are to be used at all to explain necessary truth, then at least some truths (those concerning relations between worlds) are necessary in virtue of something other than truth in all those worlds." – Conifold Apr 18 '21 at 01:10
  • The modal aether may not exist like in physics, but its deeper meaning and principle is helpful anyway such as experienced in physics EM theories. Do you believe principle of continuity lies behind possible worlds' relation subsist? – Double Knot Apr 18 '21 at 01:49
  • What exactly does "doesn't the background theory have it that the arbitrary mereological sums spanning the plurality of worlds, though they exist, perforce lack actuality" mean? – Noah Schweber Apr 18 '21 at 02:33
  • Idk what it means; I thought that was just what the theory said? – Kristian Berry Apr 18 '21 at 11:55

0 Answers0