We can epistemically access possible but non actual worlds by noting that they are not against known laws of nature
There are two options for what you’re trying to do here:
(1) You’re trying to analyze away metaphysical-possibilityspeak in terms of metaphysical-lawspeak. I.e., there’s nothing we could discover or learn that would disassociate these two concepts; one is simply an definitional analysis of the other. In which case, we can simply discard the idea of metaphysical possibility, to avoid miscommunication (since most people do not understand it in this way), and speak only of the laws of nature.
(2) You’re leaving the concepts distinct, but explaining that it just is the case that ‘what is lawful is possible, and what is “against the (natural) law” is impossible’, even though this is not synonymous with saying ‘what is possible is possible, and what is impossible is impossible’. That is, this is a substantive metaphysical thesis.
If you mean to be asserting (2), the metaphysical rather than semantic thesis (i.e., the non-trivial and interesting one), then I ask: What is your basis for this claim? What is your prior grasp on metaphysical possibility, such that you can be confident of its relationship to natural law? Are the laws of nature themselves contingent, or necessary? What evidence could we use to decide the matter one way or the other?
we can simply discard the idea of metaphysical possibility, to avoid miscommunication (since most people do not understand it in this way),
Because most people do understand it epistemically/subjectively? I think there are many kinds of possibility and many kinds of laws, and different kinds of possibility, and we make judgements about possibility based on lows. The nomologically possible is that which is allowed by the laws of nature, the logically possible is that which is not contradictory, which follows the law of non contradiction, and the epistemically possible is that which does not contradict anything I already know. So I think the kinds of possibility have a family resemblance, and there is no issue of dsicarding the other kinds in favour of epistemic possibility. (I am however happy to deflate a “possible world” into a “hypothetical state of affairs that is allowed by such-and-such laws”).
into
Because most people do understand it epistemically/subjectively?
No. Most English language speakers use modal terms both epistemically and metaphysically. My point was that most people, both lay- and academic, do not use ‘p is (metaphysically) possible’ to mean ‘p is not ruled out by the laws of physics’. If they did, then they wouldn’t understand anthropic arguments that presuppose the contingency of the physical laws themselves.
I think there are many kinds of possibility and many kinds of laws
Then I don’t know what claim you’re making anymore. Taboo ‘law’; what is it you’re actually including in this ‘law’ category, potentially?
I think the kinds of possibility have a family resemblance, and there is no issue of dsicarding the other kinds in favour of epistemic possibility.
But you still haven’t explained what a ‘merely possible’ thing is. If logical and nomological possibility are metaphysical, then you owe us an account of what kinds of beings or thingies these possibilia are. On the other hand, if you reduce logical and nomological possibility to epistemic possibility—logical necessity is what I can infer from a certain set of logical axioms alone, logical possibility is what I can’t infer the negation of from some set of axioms, nomological necessity is what I know given only a certain set of ‘natural laws’.… but if we epistemologize these forms of necessity, then we collapse everything into the epistemic, and no longer owe any account of mysterious ‘possible worlds’ floating out there in the aether.
do not use ‘p is (metaphysically) possible’ to mean ‘p is not ruled out by the laws of physics’. If they did, then they wouldn’t understand anthropic arguments that presuppose the contingency of the physical laws themselves.
If that is meant to indicate there is some specific sense of possible that is used instead, I doubt that.
Consider the following:
A: “Are perpertual motions machines possible?”
B: “I don;t see why not”
A: “Ah, but theyre against the laws of thermodynamics ”
B: “Ok, they.re impossible”.
A: “But could the laws of phsyics have been different..?”
B: “I suppse so. I don’t know what makes them thew way they are”.
AFAICS, B has gone through as many of 3 different notions of possibility there.
But you still haven’t explained what a ‘merely possible’ thing is.
I don’t think there is “mere” possibility, if it means subtracting the X from “something is X-ly possible if it is allowed by X-ical laws”.
If logical and nomological possibility are metaphysical, then you owe us an account of what kinds of beings or thingies these possibilia are. On the other hand, if you reduce logical and nomological possibility to epistemic possibility
What they are would depend on the value of X. Family resemblance.
There are two options for what you’re trying to do here:
(1) You’re trying to analyze away metaphysical-possibilityspeak in terms of metaphysical-lawspeak. I.e., there’s nothing we could discover or learn that would disassociate these two concepts; one is simply an definitional analysis of the other. In which case, we can simply discard the idea of metaphysical possibility, to avoid miscommunication (since most people do not understand it in this way), and speak only of the laws of nature.
(2) You’re leaving the concepts distinct, but explaining that it just is the case that ‘what is lawful is possible, and what is “against the (natural) law” is impossible’, even though this is not synonymous with saying ‘what is possible is possible, and what is impossible is impossible’. That is, this is a substantive metaphysical thesis.
If you mean to be asserting (2), the metaphysical rather than semantic thesis (i.e., the non-trivial and interesting one), then I ask: What is your basis for this claim? What is your prior grasp on metaphysical possibility, such that you can be confident of its relationship to natural law? Are the laws of nature themselves contingent, or necessary? What evidence could we use to decide the matter one way or the other?
Because most people do understand it epistemically/subjectively? I think there are many kinds of possibility and many kinds of laws, and different kinds of possibility, and we make judgements about possibility based on lows. The nomologically possible is that which is allowed by the laws of nature, the logically possible is that which is not contradictory, which follows the law of non contradiction, and the epistemically possible is that which does not contradict anything I already know. So I think the kinds of possibility have a family resemblance, and there is no issue of dsicarding the other kinds in favour of epistemic possibility. (I am however happy to deflate a “possible world” into a “hypothetical state of affairs that is allowed by such-and-such laws”). into
No. Most English language speakers use modal terms both epistemically and metaphysically. My point was that most people, both lay- and academic, do not use ‘p is (metaphysically) possible’ to mean ‘p is not ruled out by the laws of physics’. If they did, then they wouldn’t understand anthropic arguments that presuppose the contingency of the physical laws themselves.
Then I don’t know what claim you’re making anymore. Taboo ‘law’; what is it you’re actually including in this ‘law’ category, potentially?
But you still haven’t explained what a ‘merely possible’ thing is. If logical and nomological possibility are metaphysical, then you owe us an account of what kinds of beings or thingies these possibilia are. On the other hand, if you reduce logical and nomological possibility to epistemic possibility—logical necessity is what I can infer from a certain set of logical axioms alone, logical possibility is what I can’t infer the negation of from some set of axioms, nomological necessity is what I know given only a certain set of ‘natural laws’.… but if we epistemologize these forms of necessity, then we collapse everything into the epistemic, and no longer owe any account of mysterious ‘possible worlds’ floating out there in the aether.
If that is meant to indicate there is some specific sense of possible that is used instead, I doubt that. Consider the following:
A: “Are perpertual motions machines possible?”
B: “I don;t see why not”
A: “Ah, but theyre against the laws of thermodynamics ”
B: “Ok, they.re impossible”.
A: “But could the laws of phsyics have been different..?”
B: “I suppse so. I don’t know what makes them thew way they are”.
AFAICS, B has gone through as many of 3 different notions of possibility there.
I don’t think there is “mere” possibility, if it means subtracting the X from “something is X-ly possible if it is allowed by X-ical laws”.
What they are would depend on the value of X. Family resemblance.