So there are several ways to make sense of restricted identities. Which is the right one? Maybe there is no fact of the matter.
The difference depends on which contexts are regarded as referentially transparent and which as opaque. And that in turn depends on how the referents are individuated. For instance, (de re) ascriptions of modal properties will be transparent iff the referents of singular terms are such that they determine the truth value of all such ascriptions, perhaps because they (the referents) are fusions of world-bound individuals with their counterparts, or because they are Carnapian individual concepts, or because they simply contain some hidden tag that determinately settles all their modal properties. At any rate, for de re modal contexts to be referentially transparent, the referents have to provide us with a function from worlds to world-bound individuals, as that's what we need to determine the the truth value of those ascriptions. Alternatively, if we hold that those contexts are referentially opaque, we decide that the referents do not contain that information. Instead, we put the information into another aspect of meaning, which we call the terms' intension. Is the difference really more than just a relabeling of semantic vocabulary?
Now restricted identities threaten to violate
Leibniz's Law: If R1 is identical with R2, then how can they differ in
their courses? If AD1 is AD2, how can they differ in their history?
If A1 is A2, how can they differ in their modal properties?
They can't. So either R1 and R2 (and AD1 and AD2, and A1 and A2) are
not really identical, or the don't really differ. Let's look at the
first option first. It says that R1 and R2 are not really
identical. Hence "R1 = R2" is false, even though
If you follow the Rhine upstream, you'll reach Reichenau in Switzerland, where its two tributaries, the Vorderrhein and the Hinterrhein, meet. As far as I know, it is undefined which of them, if any, is the Rhine. Obviously that's not a mystery but just a matter of stipulation. So let's stipulate that 'R1' is to denote the continuation of the Rhine through the Vorderrhein, and 'R2' its continuation through the Hinterrhein.
What's the difference between substitutional and objectual quantification? I'll use the old-fashioned round brackets for objectual quantifiers and square brackets for substitutional quantifiers. The standard interpretations are
OB) (x)A is true under an interpretation I iff for some new constant t, A(x/t) is true under all interpretations I' that differ from I at most in what they assign to t.
SUB) [x]A is true under an interpretation I iff for all constants t, A(x/t) is true under I.
Assume that predication (and the truth functors) is interpreted in one of the usual ways, for instance by ruling that Ft is true under I iff I(t) is in I(F).
Then if (x)A is true under any interpretation, [x]A is also true under that interpretation. The converse holds iff every interpretation assigns every object in the domain to some constant.
Let K be a class of sets such that whenever x is in K and x is a subset of y, then y is also in K. It follows that if the empty set is in K, then every set is in K. Let's rule this out by stipulating that some set is not in K. Thus every set that is in K is not empty. So instead of saying outright that some set is not empty we can instead say that it is in K, which sounds less controversial but really comes down to the same thing.
I think this is the trick in Gödel's ontological proof of god. His class K is the class of 'positive' properties, where properties are individuated intensionally. Gödel claims 1) that whenever some property Q is necessarily implied by a positive property P, then property Q is also positive (which is just the closure principle above), and 2) that not all properties are positive. On these assumptions saying that a property is positive means saying that it is not empty, that is, not necessarily uninstantiated. Hence when Gödel says that 3) necessary existence is a positive property he in effect says that a necessary being possibly exists, which in turn means that a necessary being actually exists.
The fallacy is to assume that there is any class of ('positive') properties satisfying (1)-(3).
Sometimes we wonder whether some thing A is identical with some thing B: Is the man in the brown hat (the same as) my neighbour? Is the table in the mirror over there (the same as) the one here in front of me? Is the square root of 841 (equal to) 29?
What determines whether A really is identical with B? According to a view I find very irritating it's the identity conditions of A and B. The idea is that all things fall under kinds, and every kind comes with an associated identity condition. Different kinds may be associated with the same identity condition, but there is never more than one identity condition for a kind. So to find out whether A = B, we first have to find the relevant identity conditions of A and B. A good way to find those is to find the relevant kinds and look for their associated identity conditions. If the identity conditions differ, A is not identical with B. If they are the same, they tell us under which conditions A and B is identical, and we only have to find out whether these conditions obtain.
Postbote now supports CC and BCC and sending attachments. (Attachments are still lost when forwarding mails though.) I've made a few other changes most of which should be obvious. Not so obvious is that sessions are now tied to IP addresses. So if you're on a dialup connection and reconnect to your ISP, you'll have to log in again. (The point of this restriction is that it makes it much harder for terrorists to break into your session when you click a link in an email.)
Here's a little question about David Chalmers' paper "Does Conceivability entail Possibility?". I'm interested in the relation between what Chalmers calls strong scrutability and what he just calls scrutability. In particular, I wonder if strong scrutability is really stronger than mere scrutability. This depends on a claim Chalmers makes in sections 10 and 11: that if there are inscrutable truths, it follows that some statements are epistemically possible (not ruled out a priori) but yet not really (primarily) possible. My question is: why does that follow?
There's something odd about Albert's reasoning:
If that stranger's predictions are true, he probably is a time
traveler. I want him to be a
time traveler. Therefore I should try to make his predictions
come true.
The problem is that by trying to make the predictions come true,
Albert decreases the evidential support their truth lends to the
claim that the stranger is a time traveler.
Albert is a time traveler. In 2015 he travels back to 1995. There he meets his younger self and tells him in great detail what he, the younger Albert, will do in the next 20 years: that he will quit smoking, be injured in a traffic accident at a certain date and location, that he will work very hard in a physics lab to build a time machine, and so on. All these predications come true.
Isn't that puzzling? For example, on the day of the predicted traffic accident, why did Albert, who knew about the prediction, not avoid getting to that particular location? Why does he always behave exactly as he was predicted to do? This is certainly not what ordinary people would do. If you claimed to know that I will raise my left hand in a minute and told me so, I would try not to raise my left hand. Does Albert never try to make the predictions false? Or does he, but always fails? That seems unbelievable. How can you try not to work hard in a physics lab but fail? In fact, we may assume that Albert is told by his older self that he will never even try to make the predictions false. Then he never tries and fails because he just never tries. How strange. And how stupid: Albert knows since 1995 that he will eventually travel back in time with a time machine. For he has already met his older self. So why does he work hard at the lab? Why not lie in bed and watch TV instead? No matter what you do, you can't change the past. So no matter what Albert does in 2003, he can't change the fact that in 1995, he arrived as a time traveler from the future. So he's a fool when he's working hard to make it happen (or rather, to make it have happened).