Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …


International Journal for Ontology and Metaphysics

Managing Editor: Koridze, Georg

Ed. by Hüntelmann, Rafael / Meixner, Uwe / Tegtmeier, Erwin

Editorial Board: Addis, Laird / Davies, Brian / Hochberg, Herbert / Johansson, Ingvar / Kanzian, Christian / Klima, Gyula / Koons, Robert C / Künne, Wolfgang / Löffler, Winfried / Mulligan, Kevin / Nef, Frederic / Oaklander, Nathan / Oderberg, David / Orilia, Francesco / Plantinga, Alvin / Potrc, Matjaz / Rapp, Christof / Reicher-Marek, Maria Elisabeth / Schantz, Richard / Scholz, Oliver R. / Seibt, Johanna / Simons, Peter / Smith, Barry / Stoecker, Ralf / Strobach, Niko / Trettin, Käthe / Wachter, Daniel

CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.257
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.369

See all formats and pricing
More options …

What Trans-World Causation Could and Could Not Be

Alessandro Torza
  • Corresponding author
  • Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, UNAM Circuito Mario de la Cueva, Ciudad Universitaria Del. Coyoacán, México D.F. 04510
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2014-02-20 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0012


Eduardo García-Ramírez has offered a reductio of the counterfactual analysis of causation. The argument purportedly shows that, given a natural generalization of Lewis’ semantics for counterfactuals, statements expressing the existence of causal dependence across worlds are satisfiable. The aim of the present paper is twofold. In the first part, I show that the purported reductio is flawed, as it relies on an overly strong construal of the semantics for counterfactuals. In particular, it is assumed that we can assign a degree of similarity to any given pair of possible worlds. As it turns out, that assumption reduces to the thesis that the relations of comparative similarity featured in the standard semantics for counterfactuals define an interval scale of measurement on the set of all possible worlds. It will be argued that such a thesis is incompatible with a viable understanding of comparative similarity. The second part of the paper is devoted to a new proof of the possibility of trans-world causation. Nevertheless, the new proof does not amount to a reductio of Lewis’ account of causation per se, but rather of the conjunction of several substantive theses (the counterfactual analysis of causation, modal plenitude, the existence of mereological sums and the best theory account of natural laws).

Keywords: counterfactuals; causation; similarity; measurement


  • Boolos, G. 1984. “To Be Is To Be a Value of a Variable (or To Be Some Values of Some Variables).” Journal of Philosophy 81:430–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Burgess, J. 2009. Philosophical Logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Craig, E., eds. 1998. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Fine, K. 1975. “‘Critical Review of David Lewis’ ‘Counterfactuals’.” Mind 84:451–8.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Floridi, L. 2010. “Information, Possible Worlds and the Cooptation of Scepticism.” Synthese 175:63–88.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • García-Ramírez, E. 2011. “Trans-World Causation?” The Philosophical Quarterly 62(246):71–83.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Jacquette, D., eds. 2006. Philosophy of Logic. (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science). Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

  • Kracht, M., and O. Kutz. 2006. “Logically Possible Worlds and Counterpart Semantics for Modal Logic.” In Philosophy of Logic (Handbook of the Philosophy of Science), edited by D. Jacquette, 943–96. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar

  • Kroedel, T., and F. Huber. 2011. “Counterfactual Dependence and Arrow.” Noûs 47(3):453–66.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1973a. Counterfactuals. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1973b. “Causation.” Journal of Philosophy 70:556–67.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1979. “Counterfactual Dependence and Time’s Arrow.” Noûs 13(4):455–76.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1983. “New Work for a Theory of Universals.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 61(4):343–77.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lewis, D. 1986. On the Plurality of Worlds. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

  • Morreau, M. 2010. “It Simply Does Not Add Up: Trouble with Overall Similarity.” The Journal of Philosophy 107(9):469–90.Google Scholar

  • Okasha, S. 2011. “Theory Choice and Social Choice: Kuhn versus Arrow.” Mind 120(477):83–115.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stevens, S. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.” Science 103(2864):677–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Suppes, P. 1998. “Theory of Measurement.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. Craig, 243–49. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Torza, A. 2012. “Identity’ Without Identity.” Mind 121(481):67–95.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Williamson, T. 1988. “First-Order Logics for Comparative Similarity.” Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 29(4):457–81.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2014-02-20

Published in Print: 2014-04-01

Citation Information: Metaphysica, Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages 187–208, ISSN (Online) 1874-6373, ISSN (Print) 1437-2053, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/mp-2014-0012.

Export Citation

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin / Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in