Work #1560 · Earliest period

A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic

Kripke's 1959 founding paper — Kripke semantics for modal logic

Saul Kripke · 1959 (Kripke aged 18) · English · Mathematical-logical paper

Tradition: Mathematical logic / modal logic / analytic metaphysics

Kripke's 1959 founding paper — the possible-worlds semantics for modal logic

Published in the Journal of Symbolic Logic 24 (1959), pp. 1-14, when Kripke was eighteen (and still an undergraduate at Harvard), 'A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic' is the founding paper of the possible-worlds semantics for modal logic. Building on earlier algebraic work by Jónsson and Tarski (1951) and the relational approach of Stig Kanger and Jaakko Hintikka, but independently and more systematically, Kripke introduces models consisting of a non-empty set of possible worlds with an accessibility (or alternativeness) relation. Truth-conditions for modal formulas are then defined relative to such models: a formula □φ is true at a world w iff φ is true at every world accessible from w; ◊φ is true at w iff φ is true at some world accessible from w. Kripke proves a completeness theorem for the modal logic S5 with respect to this semantics. The framework (and the closely-related 1963 paper 'Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic' which extended it to quantified modal logic and the relations among the standard modal systems T, B, S4, S5) became the standard tool for modal-logical and metaphysical analysis throughout the second half of the twentieth century — making possible David Lewis's modal realism, Robert Stalnaker's possible-worlds semantics for conditionals, and the entire late-twentieth-century revival of analytic-metaphysical modal questions.

Author

Editions cited

  • A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic, Journal of Symbolic Logic 24 (1959), 1-14
  • Companion paper: Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic, Acta Philosophica Fennica 16 (1963), 83-94
  • Both reprinted in Reference and Modality, ed. Leonard Linsky (Oxford, 1971)
  • Critical commentary: Brian Skyrms, 'Possible Worlds, Physics and Metaphysics', Philosophical Studies 30 (1976); Robert Goldblatt, 'Mathematical Modal Logic: A View of Its Evolution', Handbook of the History of Logic vol. 7 (Elsevier, 2006)

School Embodiments

Logicism · 28%
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 22%
Structuralism · 14%
Naturalism · 10%
Realism · 12%
Analytic Philosophy · 8%
Logicism 28%

Founding paper of Kripke semantics.

"A model is a quadruple (G, K, R, φ) — possible worlds with an accessibility relation." (Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic, §2)

Foundational paper for the possible-worlds turn in analytic metaphysics.

"Possible-worlds semantics for modal logic." (Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic, §1)

Structural-semantic theory of modality.

"Modal truth depends on a structured space of worlds." (Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic, §3)

Naturalistic-mathematical framework.

"The technique extends ordinary mathematical-logical practice." (Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic, §1)
Realism 12%

Realism about modal-logical structures.

"Modal logic has a precise mathematical semantics." (Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic, §1)

Analytic-philosophical tradition.

Internal Tensions

Founding paper of Kripke semantics — written by an 18-year-old Kripke as an undergraduate. The 1959 paper plus the 1963 follow-up made possible David Lewis's modal realism, Robert Stalnaker's possible-worlds semantics for conditionals, Alvin Plantinga's modal ontological argument, and the entire late-twentieth-century revival of analytic metaphysics of modality.

I. Time

1959 (published; submitted 1958). Kripke was eighteen at submission, an undergraduate at Harvard.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Grain: Continuous Freedom: Non-Deterministic Traversability: Linear Direction: Uni-directional Dimensionality: One

II. Space

Omaha (Kripke's high-school years) / Harvard. Kripke had been working on these ideas since high school in Omaha.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Curvature: Flat Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

III. Matter

Single 14-page mathematical paper introducing the Kripke-frame structure (a set of possible worlds and an accessibility relation).

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dimensionality: Three Locality: Local

IV. Observer

Teenage Kripke. The author is an exceptional logician working at the foundations of modal logic before age twenty.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Mediated Knowledge Retainment: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: Impersonal

V. Energy

Founding-logical energies. The paper inaugurates the framework that would shape modal logic, modal metaphysics, and philosophical logic for the next sixty years.

Attributes
Extent: Infinite Ontological Status: Substantival Conservation: Conserved Dispersibility: Irreversible

VI. Information

Single founding paper. The Kripke-semantic framework (worlds + accessibility relation + valuation) is the canonical model for modal-logical reasoning.

Attributes
Ontological Status: Substantival Cosmic Conservation: Conserved Personal Conservation: Non-conserved Granularity: Continuous

Personas that cite this work

Saul Kripke David Lewis Robert Stalnaker

Personas with the nearest attribute fingerprint

Historical figures whose own classification on the same six-dimensional grid lands closest to this work's. Computed by attribute-agreement on coordinates both address.

Computed school proximity

The work's attribute fingerprint scored against all schools using the same quiz scorer. Useful as a sanity check on the hand-curated embodiments above.

How A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic resolves each dilemma

34 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 3 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way · 23 unaligned.

Each dimension is sorted so minority positions come first. Mainstream positions are folded into an expandable list.

Time · 9 dilemmas · 3 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Is the universe running out of usable energy?
The heat death of the universe — entropy maxed out, no further work possible — is among the more sobering implications of mainstream physics. Whether it is structurally inescapable depends on what kind of finitude the cosmos has.
Both time and matter are unbounded; 'running out' is misframed.
On this view, the cosmos has neither a temporal horizon nor a material exhaustion point. The framing of running out presupposes bounds that the cosmos doesn't have. Energy gradients perpetuate; new configurations emerge; the categories that make heat-death scary don't apply at the cosmic scale.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is finite; usable energy can fail without time failing. (47%) · Time both has and lacks bounds depending on the level you ask at; finitude is conventional. (26%) · The cosmos has bounds; heat death is a real horizon. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Are natural resources fundamentally finite, or only practically so?
Whether we can grow our way out of resource constraints — or whether the cosmos sets limits the economy ultimately must obey — depends on what kind of finitude matter has.
Resources are practically inexhaustible on cosmic scales; terrestrial limits are engineering.
On this view, matter and time are both unbounded at the largest scales. Terrestrial resource limits are real engineering and political constraints but not metaphysical ones; the cosmos can in principle support whatever expansion intelligence is capable of.
Roads not taken Time goes on but matter is bounded; we are eventually constrained even with infinite time. (47%) · The finitude question is level-dependent; resource ethics happens at the level that constrains us. (26%) · Resources are finite in the strict sense; living well requires accepting the limit. (12%)
Distinctive · only 15% of schools agree (31/202)
Could we owe future generations more than is materially possible to provide?
If we owe future people a habitable planet and the material means to flourish, and the cosmos is bounded in ways that make those obligations impossible at some scale, the obligation and the possibility come apart. Where they come apart turns on what kind of finitude we live in.
Both time and matter are unbounded; we cannot in principle owe more than is possible.
On this view, the cosmos has the resources to support whatever flourishing future generations are capable of, given sufficient time and intelligence. The impossibility concern is misplaced; the real questions are about trajectories and choices, not about resource ceilings.
Roads not taken Time is unbounded but matter is not; we can owe more across long time than the matter can provide. (47%) · The owing-and-possibility question is level-dependent; we owe what is appropriate at the level we act on. (26%) · The cosmos is bounded; our obligations to future generations are bounded with it. (12%)
6 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream
Observer · 37 dilemmas, all mainstream
Could causation work backwards? Causation runs one way — the arrow of time is real and structural. 68% Is the asymmetry between memory and anticipation a real feature of time, or just of us? The asymmetry is real because time itself has a real direction. 68% Is the arrow of time a real feature of the cosmos, or only of how we describe it? The arrow is real and structural; the asymmetry isn't an artifact of description. 68% Is environmental damage ever truly permanent? Damage is real and permanent on the relevant timescales. There is no recovery; there is only limitation. 66% Can a civilization recover from collapse? Civilizational complexity is hard to build and easy to lose; recovery is at best partial. 66% Does the second law of thermodynamics mean something morally? Entropy is what time is. The moral weight, if any, is the weight of working against the current. 66% When does a person begin? A person exists from conception — when a new being comes into existence. 54% What is marriage? Marriage has a given form — it’s a kind of thing we recognize, not make. 54% What is our place in nature? Active in a real nature — we cultivate, steward, transform. 48% Should we colonize space? Cultivating worlds beyond Earth is the next form of stewardship. 48% Is genetic engineering of food stewardship or domination? Genetic modification is cultivation by other means. 48% Should we trust expert testimony when we can't verify it? Trust expertise whose conclusions a competent mind can in principle reproduce. 32% Is religious revelation a real source of knowledge? Revelation is evaluable by reason — and not above it. 32% Does an LLM 'know' the things it correctly produces? An LLM can produce correct outputs but not reason to them; useful, not knowing. 32% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Are the dead morally present to the living? Are there indivisible units of experience? Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Could an AI have a mind that matters? Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Does history have a direction or meaning? Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Does prayer change God's mind? How is knowledge of reality produced? If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? Is memory stored or reconstructed? Is reality fundamentally digital? Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? What happens to "you" when you die? What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? What makes someone the same person over time? Who is the moral primary — the individual, the community, the cosmos, the class, or the species?
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #1559 Papers in Philosophical Logic All Works #1561 Semantical Considerations on Modal Logic →