Introduction

This introductory chapter explains the aim of the book: the analysis of real possibilities as anchored in a spatio-temporal world that is rudimentarily relativistic. It contrasts real possibilities to other possibilities discussed in the philosophical literature. It explains how branching is related to the possible worlds framework made popular, e.g., by David Lewis’s works. It offers philosophical comments on crucial notions and assumptions of BST, such as events, histories, and temporal directedness. It ends up with some hints about how the BST project is situated in modal metaphysics, touching themes such as the concept of actuality or the distinction between possibilities as “alternatives to” vs. “alternatives for”.

Newton’s Modal Metaphysics and Polemics with Spinozism in the “General Scholium”

This chapter is devoted to explaining the nature and use of metaphysical necessity in Newton’s “General Scholium.” In particular, it focuses on Newton’s metaphysical commitments about (i) the nature of modality; (ii) the nature of formal causation; and (iii) God’s existence. In order to explain these, the chapter draws on Clarke and Clarke’s subsequent correspondence with Joseph Butler. In order to clarify some philosophical distinctions, I treat Toland’s Spinozism, in particular, as the target of some of Newton’s arguments. Along the way, I’ll provide suggestive evidence that Newton was in a decent position to distinguish the thought of Descartes from Spinozism

Newton's Metaphysics

This collection of papers by a leading philosophical Newton scholar offers new interpretations of Newton’s account of space, gravity, motion, inertia, and laws—all evergreens in the literature. The volume also breaks new ground in focusing on Newton’s philosophy of time, Newton’s views on emanation, and Newton’s modal metaphysics. In addition, the volume is unique in exploring the very rich resonances between Newton’s and Spinoza’s metaphysics, including the ways in which Newton and his circles responded to the threat by, and possible accusation of, Spinozism. Seven chapters have been published before and will be republished with minor corrections. Two of these chapters are coauthored: one with Zvi Biener and one with Mary Domski. Two chapters are wholly new and are written especially for this volume. In addition, the volume includes two postscripts with new material responding to critics. A main part of the argument of these essays is not just to characterize the conceptual choices Newton made in developing the structure of theory that would facilitate the kind of measurements characteristic of the Newtonian style, but also to show that these choices, in turn, were informed by intellectual aspirations that brought Newton’s edifice into theological and philosophical conflicts. As these conflicts became acute, these drove further conceptual refinement. Many of the essays in the volume relate the development of Newton’s philosophy to the philosophies of his contemporaries, especially Spinoza and Samuel Clarke.

Alternate Possibilities, Divine Omniscience and Critique of Judgement §76

A philosophically and historically influential section of the Critique of Judgement presents an ‘intuitive intellect’ as a mind whose representation is limited to what actually exists, and does not extend to mere possibilities. Kant’s paradigmatic instance of such an intellect is however also the divine mind. This combination threatens to rule out the reality of the mere possibilities presupposed by Kant’s theory of human freedom. Through an analysis of the relevant issues in metaphysical cosmology, modal metaphysics and philosophical theology, I show that Kant in fact possesses the resources to reconcile the philosophical claims of §76 of the Critique of Judgement with his keystone commitment to the reality of human freedom.

Necessitism, Contingentism, and Theory Equivalence

Necessitism, Contingentism, and Theory Equivalence is a dissertation on issues in higher-order modal metaphysics. Consider a modal higher-order language with identity in which the universal quantifier is interpreted as expressing (unrestricted) universal quantification and the necessity operator is interpreted as expressing metaphysical necessity. The main question addressed in the dissertation concerns the correct theory formulated in this language. A different question that also takes centre stage in the dissertation is what it takes for theories to be equivalent.The whole dissertation consists of an extended argument in defence of the (joint) truth of two seemingly inconsistent higher-order modal theories, specifically: 1.Plantingan Moderate Contingentism, a theory based on Plantinga’s [1] modal metaphysics that is committed to, among other things, the contingent being of some individuals and the necessary being of all possible higher-order entities;2.Williamsonian Thorough Necessitism, a theory advocated by Williamson [3] which is committed to, among other things, the necessary being of every possible individual as well as of every possible higher-order entity.Part of the case for these theories’ joint truth relies on defences of the following metaphysical theses: (i) Thorough Serious Actualism, the thesis that no things could have been related while being nothing, and (ii) Higher-Order Necessitism, the thesis that necessarily, every higher-order entity is necessarily something. It is shown that Thorough Serious Actualism and Higher-Order Necessitism are both implicit commitments of very weak logical theories. The defence of Higher-Order Necessitism constitutes a powerful challenge to Stalnaker’s [2] Thorough Contingentism, a theory committed to, among other things, the view that there could have been some individuals as well as some entities of any higher-order that could have been nothing.In the dissertation it is argued that Plantingan Moderate Contingentism and Williamsonian Thorough Necessitism are in fact equivalent, even if they appear to be jointly inconsistent. The case for this claim relies on the Synonymy account, a novel account of theory equivalence developed and defended in the dissertation. According to this account, theories are equivalent just in case they have the same commitments and conception of logical space.By way of defending the Synonymy account’s adequacy, the account is applied to the debate between noneists, proponents of the view that some things do not exist, and Quineans, proponents of the view that to exist just is to be some thing. The Synonymy account is shown to afford a more nuanced and better understanding of that debate by revealing that what noneists and Quineans are really disagreeing about is what expressive resources are available to appropriately describe the world.By coupling a metatheoretical result with tools from the philosophy of language, it is argued that Plantingan Moderate Contingentism and Williamsonian Thorough Necessitism are synonymous theories, and so, by the lights of the Synonymy account, equivalent. Given the defence of their extant commitments made in the dissertation, it is concluded that Plantingan Moderate Contingentism and Williamsonian Thorough Necessitism are both correct. A corollary of this result is that the dispute between Plantingans and Williamsonians is, in an important sense, merely verbal. For if two theories are equivalent, then they “require the same of the world for their truth.”Thus, the results of the dissertation reveal that if one speaks as a Plantingan while advocating Plantingan Moderate Contingentism, or as a Williamsonian while advocating Williamsonian Thorough Necessitism, then one will not go wrong. Notwithstanding, one will still go wrong if one speaks as a Plantingan while advocating Williamsonian Thorough Necessitism, or as a Williamsonian while advocating Plantingan Moderate Contingentism.On the basis of a conception of the individual constants and predicates of second-order modal languages as strongly Millian, i.e., as having actually existing entities as their semantic values, in the appendix are presented second-order modal logics consistent with Stalnaker’s Thorough Contingentism. Furthermore, it is shown there that these logics are strong enough for applications of higher-order modal logic in mathematics, a result that constitutes a reply to an argument to the contrary by Williamson [3]. Finally, these logics are proven to be complete relative to particular “thoroughly contingentist” classes of models.

On the Possibility of Presentism with Occurrents

This paper defends the possibility of admitting occurrents in a presentist ontology. Two ways of doing so are proposed, the first one involves Meinongian presentism. By using the notion of non-existent object and coherently modifying some mereological principle, it is argued, the presentist can allow for occurrents. The second proposal involves ex-concrete objects. Ex-concrete objects, i.e. objects that are contingently not concrete, have been used by Linsky and Zalta (Philosophical Perspectives, 8 (Logic and Language), 431-458, 1994), Williamson (2002) in the modal metaphysics debate, by Orilia (Philosophical Studies, 173 (3), 589-607, 2016) in the presentism-eternalism debate, and by Longenecker (Synthese 195 (11), 5091-5111, 2018) in the debate about material constitution. I argue that, just by admitting ex-concrete objects, it is possible to have occurrents even for the presentist. Of course, in order to do so we must modify our definitions of occurrent and continuant. Nevertheless, I argue that my theory is metaphysically sound, at least for the presentist persuaded by the intuitive claim that there are occurrents, which otherwise she must reject.

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

Could there have been no concrete beings? Could there have been no contingent beings? If there could have been no such beings, why then are there any? This chapter argues that various modal metaphysics rule out the possibility of there being nothing at all. It concludes that the most prominent pictures of the nature of possibility entail the existence of something, and thus answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing.

Conclusion

The Conclusion suggests a general partition of areas of philosophical interest into those which are more like mathematics and those which are more like morality. In the former category are questions of possibility, grounding, essence, logic, and mereology. In the latter are questions of epistemology, political philosophy, aesthetics, and prudential reasoning. The chapter argues that the former questions are like the question of whether the Parallel Postulate is true, qua a pure mathematical conjecture. By contrast, practical questions are immune to deflation in this way. The conclusion is that the objective questions in the neighborhood of questions of modal metaphysics, grounding, nature, and so forth are practical. Practical philosophy should, therefore, take center stage.