I got confused by the way different people use language in the context of physicalism.
In particular, Kripke seems to equate "necessary truths" with something that is true in all possible worlds. Is this a metaphysical necessity, because there is some invariant mechanism (metaphysical physicalism)?
Also, I have seen people (I think it was Kim) claim that something can be nomologically true in any possible worlds. This seems like a contradiction to me, in the following sense.
Wikipedia has the following definition;
nomological denotes something resembling general laws, especially laws that lack logical necessity or theoretical underpinnings; they just are.
So if there is no logical necessity, if it's just brute fact, how can it be necessarily true in all possible worlds? I'd say the opposite, namely that a nomological identity is one that is observed to hold but which may not hold in all possible worlds.