Posted by agent858 on March 12, 2006, at 2:45:31
In reply to Re: z... talk to me... ?838, posted by James K on March 11, 2006, at 13:32:36
> If I needed to know where I was for some reason, and I tested the water, and my instruments for water testing (whatever I use when I'm there) say xyz, would I be able to remember that they could say H2O?
Do you really want to know?
I shall have a go...metaphysical possibility... has to do with what is and is not possible given the laws of nature (or similar - that is a very rough analysis).
the term 'water' is a term in english (on earth - in the actual world). the reference of the term 'water' was provided by a sample set... scientists studied the nature of the same stuff as the sample set... and found that it was H2O. so the thought is that given that water is in actual fact H2O water is essentially H2O.
but when scientists informed the world that water was H2O (couple centuries back) that was a significant discovery...
epistemically... we can sit in our armchairs all day and study / analyse the concept 'water' but that will get us no closer to its essential nature. solely on the basis of conceptual analysis (a-priori knowledge)... it surely seems possible that the world could be either way. the concept of water does not tell us what the essential nature / features / properties of water are...
we can't tell a-priori (on the basis of conceptual analysis) whether the actual nature of water is h2O or xyz... there is no contradiction in supposing that our instruments could (in the epistemic sense of 'could') tell us that it is H2O... and there is no contradiction in supposing that our instruments could (in the epistemic sense of 'could') tell us that it is xyz.
but as for your question...
you aren't really narrowing down where you are so very much... there are probably an indefinate number of possible worlds. you may be pleased to know that you have many many counterparts who live on these other possible worlds. Lewis talks about this... I think z quite likes the idea... I'm not sure... Sounds a little crazy to me...
there are probably still an indefinate number of possible worlds that we could be located on... we haven't figured out everything about the essential nature of this world yet...
a-priori... (before testing) you know the test could (in the epistemic sense of 'could') turn out a variety of different ways... that is why you are doing the test... because you want to see how things turn out... but given the facts about the world... what happened... probably had to happen as a matter of metaphysical necessity (given that ___ is water in the actual world then it is necessary that ___ is water in any world in which there is water)
of course... the people on twin earth (your counter-part) could say 'no dammit... we discovered water is xyz'.
and here the appropriate thing to say... is that 'water' has a different referent than 'water' in twin earth english. might appear that we are speaking the same language... but the reference of the terms is different (they pick out different kinds of stuff) and so... it is a bit like a term 'bank' that can pick out river banks or money banks except that... the reference is fixed in the actual world...
only... if you describe a scenario (surely seems possible a-priori) where scientists discover water is xyz... or where scientists discover some water is H2O and some water is xyz (within a universe / or within the world) then it would seem that...
water would essentially be xyz...
or water would be a disjunctive kind...
like how 'greenstone' has been found to refer to both jadite (one kind of stuff) and nephrite (another kind of stuff).:-)
i'm just rambelling really...
poster:agent858
thread:618106
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/write/20060125/msgs/619209.html