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
1
vote
0answers
6 views

Different ways of interpreting propensities

I am studying the propensity interpretation of probability and I am wondering if propensities are irreducibly intensional or if there is a possibility to interpret them in an extensional way. Could ...
-1
votes
3answers
60 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 ...
0
votes
1answer
102 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
58 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 ...
3
votes
1answer
56 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 ...
1
vote
0answers
68 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
40 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 ...
2
votes
0answers
115 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
49 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 ...
4
votes
4answers
821 views

How does Plantinga's free will defense of God's benevolence work?

The purpose of the defense is to show that omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent God is consistent with the existence of evil in creation. The most popular version of the defense is due to Alvin ...
2
votes
0answers
71 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
3answers
200 views

Questions from a new introduction to modal logic by Hughes and Cresswell

Note: There is a lack of consistency regarding symbols for modal operators. Hughes and Cresswell use a different symbolization schema than many and a comment about L & M may provide clarity ...
3
votes
1answer
244 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 ...
3
votes
2answers
252 views

A problem with Modal Logic (necessary truths)

I have this problem with Modal Logic that I am not sure I see which propositions in this logic are necessary besides tautological propositions. I mean metaphysically, something is necessary if it's ...
3
votes
6answers
6k views

If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible?

If everything is possible, is it possible for something to be impossible? Possibility and impossibility are modal notions; and are dual in the usual formulation; the SEP remarks: It would seem to ...
3
votes
1answer
401 views

Is there anyone who believes that all modal statements are meaningless or trivial?

It is often useful to interpret statements in various modal logics using possible-world semantics. For instance "it is necessary that P" means "P is true in all possible worlds", "it is possible that ...
2
votes
1answer
198 views

Axioms for modal logics based upon counterfactuals

Suppose we have a logic for counterfactuals as with David Lewis. I here use ⇛ for the counterfactual conditional. So suppose we have: Rules: (1) If A and A→B are theorems, then B is a theorem. (2)...
5
votes
1answer
153 views

Conditional logic - how to apply a conditional with complex antecedent in tableaux?

I'm referring to the conditional logic of C+ as described Graham Priest in "An introduction to non-classical logic" chapter 5, where the strict conditional is enhanced with ceteris paribus, and a ...
2
votes
2answers
101 views

What's the difference between logical modalities and physical modalities?

I am just wondering what's the difference between the two. I would say that there is something different, but honestly I can't define what it is exactly. What do you think?
3
votes
1answer
82 views
0
votes
3answers
108 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?
7
votes
3answers
632 views

Is there modal logic without possible worlds?

Would it be desirable to carry out a deflationary research programme in modal logic? In other words, would it be desirable to re-think modal logic without the possible worlds semantics? The original ...
1
vote
3answers
295 views

Are all logically necessary statements self identity claims?

When we say that x is necessarily P, are we not asserting that this is the case regardless of all contingent facts, so regardless of what x and P are? And if x was P regardless of what x and P are, ...
7
votes
2answers
279 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
223 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
3answers
151 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 ...
5
votes
1answer
295 views

Does anyone have a proof checker they prefer using for modal logic?

I am looking for a proof checker for modal logic using natural deduction or sequent calculus. I am trying to learn Isabelle, but I think there should be a simpler solution. Although I can rely on ...
2
votes
1answer
84 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
2answers
134 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
2
votes
1answer
66 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?
3
votes
1answer
71 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 ...
4
votes
2answers
392 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
2answers
166 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/...
2
votes
1answer
39 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
136 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
75 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
162 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
1answer
81 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 ...
1
vote
0answers
156 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) ∧ ...
1
vote
1answer
79 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.)
0
votes
2answers
129 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
151 views

Negation of a E quantifier in a Modal Logic T System?

In System T its possible to conclude: (1) □Ex->Ex Therefore its possible to conclude: (2) Ex->◊Ex But whats the result, if I negate the existence quantifier? Is it: (3) ~Ex->~◊Ex or is it: (4) ~Ex->◊~...
2
votes
1answer
153 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
106 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
3answers
178 views

How do pragmatists avoid this modal argument against their view of truth?

I am reading Harry Gensler's Introduction to Logic (Routledge, 2002) and doing exercise 1 of 7.3b in the "Basic Modal Logic" chapter. I think I follow the steps. The answer is in the book. My ...
3
votes
0answers
95 views

Propositions that can't be used to distinguish possible worlds

Are there known ways of formalizing the notion of propositions that can't be targeted by counterfactuals in a coherent way? Or of propositions that are outside the scope of the framework in question? ...
2
votes
1answer
253 views

What the main reason for Bertrand Russell's skepticism and rejection of modal logic?

It seems to me that Bertrand Russell was somewhat hostile to the idea that modality plays a role in logic.
2
votes
3answers
371 views

What is necessity in modal logic?

I understand that something that is necessary must exist. However, what is the exact definition of necessity? Thank you.
5
votes
1answer
365 views

Can possible-but-non-actual objects have accidental properties?

The modal logic I am considering is the "Simplest Quantified Modal Logic" which combines first-order predicate logic with identity, with S5 in the most straightforward way, described here and slightly ...
2
votes
4answers
134 views

How to denote physical (not logical) impossibility in modal logic?

Say I want to note that in this world, it's physically impossible to jump over the Eiffel Tower. I can just write ¬◇x, but this seems to say that in all possible worlds x is impossible, and I want to ...