Re: Bruno's argument

From: Jesse Mazer <lasermazer.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:12:06 -0400

1Z wrote:

>Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> > But "natural laws" are usually taken to be contingent, we can imagine
> > possible worlds where they are different--can you have "supervenience"
>under
> > logical laws, or any other laws which must be the same in all possible
> > worlds?
>
>natural laws ae the same in all naturally possible worlds.

True, but when philosophers talk about "possible worlds" they are almost
always using a broader notion than possibility under the laws of
physics--any world that does not contain a logical or mathematical
impossibility, or any other type of incoherence in its description, is
viewed as a possible world.

Jesse



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jul 20 2006 - 19:13:11 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:11 PST