Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter March 24, 2016

A Refutation of the Lewis-Stalnaker Analysis of Counterfactuals

Marcus Arvan
From the journal Metaphysica

Abstract

The standard philosophical analysis of counterfactual conditionals – the Lewis-Stalnaker analysis – analyzes the truth-conditions of counterfactuals in terms of nearby possible worlds. This paper demonstrates that this analysis is false. Section 1 shows that it is a serious epistemic and metaphysical possibility that our “world” is a massive computer simulation, and that if the Lewis-Stalnaker analysis of counterfactuals is correct, then it should extend seamlessly to the case that our world is a computer simulation, in the form of a possible-simulation semantics. Section 2 then shows that a Lewis-Stalnaker-style possible-simulation semantics clearly fails as an analysis of the truth-conditions of counterfactuals in two types of simulated worlds: Humean Simulations and Necessitarian simulations. Section 3 then considers and answers several objections. Finally, Section 4 draws several skeptical lessons about counterfactuals.

References

Arvan, Marcus. 2014. A unified explanation of quantum phenomena? The case for the peer-to-peer simulation hypothesis as an interdisciplinary research program. The Philosophical Forum 45(4). 433–446.10.1111/phil.12043Search in Google Scholar

Arvan, Marcus. 2013. A new theory of free will. The Philosophical Forum 44(1). 1–48.10.1111/phil.12000Search in Google Scholar

Beane, Silas; Zohreh Davoudi & Martin J. Savage. 2012. Constraints on the universe as a numerical simulation. arXiv:1210.1847.Search in Google Scholar

Bennett, Jonathan. 2003. A philosophical guide to conditionals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199258872.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Bostrom, Nick. 2003. Are we living in a computer simulation? Philosophical Quarterly 53 (211):243–255.10.1111/1467-9213.00309Search in Google Scholar

Chalmers, David J. 2005. The matrix as metaphysics. In Christopher Grau (ed.), Philosophers explore the matrix. New York: Oxford University Press. 132–176.Search in Google Scholar

Jacobs, Jonathan D. 2010. A powers theory of modality: Or, how I learned to stop worrying and reject possible worlds. Philosophical Studies 151(2). 227–248.10.1007/s11098-009-9427-1Search in Google Scholar

Kripke, Saul. 1972. Naming and necessity. In Donald Davidson & Gilbert Harman (eds.), Semantics of natural language, 253–355, 763–769. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. Revised edition published in 1980 as Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_9Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, David K. 1986. On the plurality of worlds, vol. 322. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, David K. 1979. Counterfactual dependence and time’s arrow. Noûs 13. 455–476.10.1093/0195036468.003.0002Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, David K. 1973. Counterfactuals. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers; and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Reprinted with revisions, 1986.Search in Google Scholar

Sider, T. 2006. Beyond the Humphrey objection. Unpublished manuscript.Search in Google Scholar

Stalnaker, Robert. 1968. A theory of conditionals. In Nicholas Rescher (ed.), Studies in logical theory (American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series: Volume 2), Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 98–112.Search in Google Scholar

Weatherson, Brian. 2014. “David Lewis”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/david-lewis/, accessed 11 March 2016.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-3-24
Published in Print: 2016-4-1

©2016 by De Gruyter