The question is pretty much self-explanatory, I was just curious if there is any possible way to show that Modal collapse isn't caused by determinism.

  • 2
    I'm not voting to close, and I know you say that the question is self-explanatory, but I would suggest at least linking to a Wikipedia/SEP article/section on modal collapse. I feel like I've seen this contention, or a similar one, before, but either way, I think I can see what you're getting at but without spelling out issues like logical vs. nomological necessity, etc. a random outsider might not see the point of the contention. Mar 4 at 23:58
  • 1
    The question is not self-explanatory, one-liners never are. "Determinism" can mean a single timeline or multiple timelines, as in many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. "Modal" is also highly ambiguous, see SEP, Varieties of Modality. Even with a single deterministic timeline logical, metaphysical and even physical (with different initial states) possibilities remain.
    – Conifold
    Mar 5 at 6:31

1 Answer 1


Determinism requires nothing. Determinism only assumes.

In a deterministic system everything is necessarily as it is. There are no alternative possibilities or uncertainties of any kind.

However, that doesn't mean that there are only necessarily true statements. In a deterministic system there are no statements at all, no entities capable of making any statements.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .