A message from our CEO about the future of Stack Overflow and Stack Exchange. Read now.

Questions tagged [modal-logic]

a type of formal logic primarily developed in the 1960s that extends classical propositional and predicate logic to include operators expressing modality

Filter by
Sorted by
Tagged with
-3
votes
0answers
57 views

Did any logician object to the idea that if two contingent propositions are true, then they imply one another?

Both the following sentences are true: On January 22, 2020, the earth is orbiting the sun. On January 21, 2020, Trump was the 45th president of the United States of America. So did any ...
3
votes
3answers
162 views

From Ignorant to Researcher in Modal Logic

I am a student in a French university in pure mathematics. I recently came across modal logic and more particularly doxastic logic. But, the only masters of logic offered are reserved for students of ...
1
vote
1answer
17 views

In Quine's ontology, why does a 'recognition' of something lead to ontological commitment while a 'feeling' does not?

We are discussing Quine's On What There Is in a metaphysics class I am in. I felt like I understood what he meant, that if something has to be predicated for in a sentence, we are ontologically ...
1
vote
0answers
103 views

Boethius, Logical Necessity, and Accidental Necessity: A Solution to Free Will and Foreknowledge?

In his classic book, the Consolation of Philosophy (Book V), Boethius attempts to make an argument that libertarian free will and [divine] foreknowledge are not incompatible. His argument goes ...
0
votes
1answer
286 views

Is God's existence either impossible or necessary?

This is meant as a supplement to a modal ontological argument to show that God's existence is either logically impossible or necessary. Am I committing a fallacy or a logical error of some kind or ...
0
votes
0answers
241 views

Did Robert Nozick's “Principle of Plenitude” propose the existence of universes based on different fundamental logics?

Philosopher Robert Nozick proposed the "Principle of Plenitude" (or of Fecundity), which proposes the existence of all possible worlds. I have a feeling that it is different from David Lewis' Modal ...
-2
votes
2answers
112 views

Modal Logic: One non-transitive frame where schema 4 is invalid?

I know that schema 4 defines the class of all transitive frames, meaning that it is not valid in at least one model that is non-transitive. However, I am not sure how we would go about proving that if ...
1
vote
1answer
57 views

Do possible worlds partition the set of all possible states of affairs?

Let S be the set of all ( logically) possible states of affairs ( I could have said " events" or " propositions" maybe). Let R be the relation : state of affairs x is compossible/ compatible with ...
0
votes
1answer
123 views

How to prove rigorously that “ necessarily ( A OR ~A) ” does not imply “ necessarily A OR necessarily ~A”?

In De Interpretatione , Aristotle criticizes logical fatalism ( a metaphysical doctrine professed in the Megarian School, in particular by Diodorus Cronus). Aristotle reconstructs the reasoning of ...
1
vote
0answers
77 views

Modal Logic: Proving Schema Validity

When faced with a question of the sort, "Is schema X valid in class of frames C?", we usually go about proving or disproving this by assuming the antecedent of X and showing that the consequent ...
1
vote
1answer
107 views

Trying to formalize a certain sentence in predicate modal logic

I have the following sentence which I want to formalize in predicate modal logic. The sentence is: What is good for you is not necessarily good for others" My attempt at formalizing this is as ...
2
votes
1answer
97 views

Modal logic: Why is K5 determined by the class of all Euclidean frames?

I am interested in proving that K, the smallest normal modal logic, in combination with the formula 5 (Possibly A then Necessarily Possibly A) is determined by the class of all Euclidean frames. For ...
0
votes
1answer
96 views

What kinds of proofs can be given for axioms, e.g. the modal axiom S5?

From John Bigelow and Robert Pargetter's book, titled, 'Science and Necessity', they assert the following: . . . . The resulting system, S5, contains all the theorems of S4 and all the theorems of ...
-2
votes
2answers
105 views

Probabilty and QM [closed]

What has been written so far on the theme?
0
votes
1answer
82 views

Modal Logic: Why are Universal frames a subset of Equivalence frames?

I'm looking through the lecture notes for my course on modal logic and am having a hard time understanding why it is that U, the class of all Universal frames, is a subset of E, the class of all ...
2
votes
1answer
82 views

Modal Logic: Point-wise equivalence vs. (simple) equivalence

I am reading Brain Chellas' Modal Logic and have a question regarding point-wise and (simple) equivalence: what is a scenario in which two models are equivalent but not point-wise equivalent? Say, ...
0
votes
0answers
56 views

Is this valid in first-order modal logic?

(∀x)(∀y){(xEy) --> (∀z)[Tz --> (C(x,z)Ey)]} (Premise) {(∀y)[Ty --> (∃x)(Tx & xEy)]} --> {(∀y)[Ty --> (∃x)(Tx & xEy & ◻(Tx --> Ty))]} (From (1)) I'm trying to work this out in a quantified ...
1
vote
0answers
30 views

Did Carnap propose some kind of Modal Realism?

I have read in several pages that Rudolf Carnap, just as David Lewis (The creator of Modal Realism philosophical hypothesis) proposed that every logical proposition exists as a universe But is this ...
0
votes
1answer
37 views

David Lewis and naturalism

I am studying Lewis and I am wondering what are the cornerstones of his philosophical perspective. In particular, I am wondering if Lewis is a naturalist like his supervisor Quine.
0
votes
1answer
112 views

What are the various interpretations of modal logic?

Wikipedia lists the following interpretations of modal logic: Alethic: fundamental conditions of possible worlds, causality, time-space parameters, and the action capacity of persons. Indicates the ...
4
votes
1answer
62 views

What are good sources on vivid designators?

Wikipedia lists a vivid designator as the following: Vivid designator: In modal logic and the philosophy of language, a vivid designator is a term which is believed to designate the same ...
-1
votes
3answers
65 views

A question about possibility

If A, then B ~ A So, possible that B Valid or not? My take: Not valid. Reason: Valid means if all the premises are true, the conclusion must be true That means adding new information should not ...
2
votes
1answer
136 views

What is the Barcan Formula?

can someone please help explain this Barcan formula to me? (In English translation and maybe with an example?) (◊ ∃x Fx) ↔ (∃x ◊ Fx) And if there is only one possible state of the world, would it ...
2
votes
0answers
52 views

Can a Rigid Designator still exist if there is only one possible world?

According to Kripke, a rigid designator is a pronoun (but not all pronouns are rigid designators) and they pick out the same unique individual in each possible world. I understand this, however, if ...
1
vote
0answers
87 views

How and why Aristotelian essentialism is a problem for Quine?

I cannot understand how and why the Aristotelian essentialism is problematic for Quine. I have tried to read articles on the theme but probably I am not smart enough to understand them. Could you ...
2
votes
0answers
120 views

Modal logics - philosophical paradoxes using modeling by possible worlds

I'm searching for "paradoxes" in classical modal logics, meaning lines of reasoning which give a counterintuitive conclusion if performed in classical logic, which can be modelled by the (semantical) ...
3
votes
0answers
55 views

De Re, Counterfactuals, and rigidity

This is going to come off as vague or obscure; but, I hope the idea is performatively expressed: Two questions: Do you think that Kripke would argue that the impossibility of de re counterfactuals ...
2
votes
0answers
75 views

Does ◻(∀x)[Px ≡ ◻(E!x → Qx)] and ◻(∀x)(Qx → ◻E!x) entail ◻(∀x){Px ≡ ◻[E!x & (E!x → Qx)]}?

Say we are working in a free quantified modal logic system S5. Would the following argument be valid: ◻(∀x)[Px ≡ ◻(E!x → Qx)] (Premise) ◻(∀x)(Qx → ◻E!x) (Premise) ◻(∀x){Px ≡ ◻[E!x & (E!x → Qx)]}...
3
votes
1answer
266 views

How to prove □Q from P→Q and □P?

Given P→Q, and □P, in what systems can we conclude □Q? I want to know in which system the consequent is derivable from the premises and in which it is axiomatic (or perhaps we can include it as an ...
8
votes
2answers
307 views

Should truth entail possible truth?

It is a well-accepted axiom of modal logic that truth implies possible truth. Is there any philosophical argument against this conclusion? In other words, should truth entail possible truth?
3
votes
1answer
84 views

Is □(□A→B) v □(□B→A) provable in S5? If it's not, I am having trouble coming up with a countermodel

Modal Logic question about provability/ countermodels.
1
vote
3answers
206 views

Is anything not proven impossible therefore possible?

Is it a truism that, except for that which is proven impossible, everything is or must be considered possible? If so, why? It seems to me to be an argument from ignorance to say that just because we ...
2
votes
1answer
86 views

How to prove or disprove validity of ◻◻p → ◻p in the frame (Q,<) of the rational numbers with the usual less-than ordering?

I was wondering if someone can perhaps help with this proving. I am not sure how to handle a temporal frame that is not a set of only natural numbers. Any suggestions? Thank you.
2
votes
1answer
72 views

Is ◻((◻(P → ◻P)) ↔ (◻P v ◻~P)) derivable in S5?

Is ◻((◻(P → ◻P)) ↔ (◻P v ◻~P)) a theorem in S5? If so, is it also a theorem in B or just S5?
2
votes
2answers
155 views

Prove or disprove ~◇◻p → ◇◇~p in system K

How to start with the following proof? Any help would be appreciated. I have tried by assuming the left side is true, however, I get confused with the negation. ~◇◻p → ◇◇~p
4
votes
2answers
399 views

Does S4 (and B) hold for the strongest interpretations of ♢ and □?

Suppose these are the interpretations we are working with: ♢Ψ iff no explicit contradiction can be deduced from Ψ in FOL or in other words it's not provable that ~Ψ in FOL. ~♢Ψ iff an explicit ...
2
votes
1answer
41 views

Prove the rule that proves X(P) from X(a) preserves derivability in modal system K

I'm trying to solve a problem which asks me to show that the meta-rule defined by deriving X(P) from X(a) preserves derivability (i.e. if ⊢X(a) then ⊢X(P) in modal system K, where a is a sentence ...
3
votes
1answer
183 views

S5 proof of ⊢◻(◻P→◻Q)∨◻(◻Q→◻P)

I'm trying to construct an S5 proof of ⊢◻(◻P→◻Q)∨◻(◻Q→◻P). I know that ϕ∨ψ is equivalent to ~ϕ→ψ, and so what I'm really trying to derive is ~◻(◻P→◻Q)→◻(◻Q→◻P) (which is equivalent to ◊~(◻P→◻Q)→◻(◻Q→◻...
1
vote
1answer
118 views

Axiomatic proof of ⊢ □P → □◇□P in S4

As the title explains, I'm trying to give an axiomatic proof of ⊢ □P → □◇□P in S4. This is simple to prove in B, but I'm struggling to see how it's done in S4. I'd really appreciate any help you ...
1
vote
3answers
169 views

Modal validity & vagueness

(2nd version to make explicit my implicit assumptions about A, B and C, and the definitions of the non-logical constants "⊂" and "≡".) Intuitively, the following modal argument seems valid to me and ...
2
votes
2answers
174 views

Does ◻(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ◻(E!x & (E!x ⊃ Fx))) entail ◻((∃x)Fx ⊃ ◻(∃x)Fx)?

I was wondering if we can derive ◻((∃x)Fx ⊃ ◻(∃x)Fx) from ◻(∀x)(Fx ⊃ ◻(E!x & (E!x ⊃ Fx)))? (By the way 'E!' is the existence predicate.) I am using the Quantified Free Modal Logic constructed/...
3
votes
1answer
86 views

What is reflexivity in temporal logic?

According to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, reflexivity can be defined by : ∀x(x ≺ x) Where ≺ means "Precedes" : For all x, x precedes x But what does it mean for an instant in time x ...
2
votes
1answer
85 views

Equivalence of strings of modal operators in modal logic

I'm trying to solve a question which asks me to show that for any two finite strings O₁ and O₂ of □s and ◊s, (e.g. □□◊□◊□), that i) if O₁≡O₂ then OO₁≡OO₂ and ii) if O₁≡O₂ then O₁O≡O₂O where O is ...
0
votes
3answers
131 views

Logical expression that non-existent things don't do anything?

How could we express the idea that "something that doesn't exist cannot possibly do anything" using a logical argument? And if so, it is at all possible to prove that kind of proposition?
1
vote
0answers
157 views

Semantic expressiveness of modal logic

I am wondering how much of the semantic of basic philosophical questions can be expressed by formal arguments in modal logic. Here is one argument I formalised myself: P1 ◇ ∀a, ∃x // GNB(x, a) ∧ ...
0
votes
2answers
156 views

Validity of a modal argument?

Would you say that the following argument is valid? And if not, why exactly? For all we know, A may be the state of B; What C does is determined by the state of B; Therefore, for all ...
2
votes
1answer
155 views

On that p does not imply necessarily p

Am I right to assume that in no modal logic, whether in K or in a logic where the accessibility relation is specified as either reflexive, symmetrical or transitive, does ”p implies necessarily p” ...
0
votes
1answer
111 views

How to prove or disprove “Necessarily P entails P” in Kripke Modal Logic?

I'm doing the body of exercises in Priest's Introduction to Non-classical logic, and got weirdly stuck on 2.12 (o). (I'm on Problems 2.12, if anyone has a link to the answers that would also be much ...
2
votes
1answer
235 views

Is the problem of logical omniscience intractable?

Vincent Hendricks and John Symons notes the following about epistemic logic: Epistemic logic gets its start with the recognition that expressions like ‘knows that’ or ‘believes that’ have ...
1
vote
1answer
83 views

Going from ◊(∃x)◻Fx and ◻(∀x)(Fx --> E!x) to ◊(∃x)◻(Fx & E!x)

Is it a valid inference (in, say, any quantified modal logic S5 system) to go from ◊(∃x)◻Fx and ◻(∀x)(Fx --> E!x) to ◊(∃x)◻(Fx & E!x)? (E!x is the existence predicate, by the way.)