Work #413 · Late (Lewis's mature systematic statement of the modal-realist programme) period

On the Plurality of Worlds

The systematic defense of modal realism — concrete possible worlds as real as our own

David Lewis · 1986 · English · Systematic philosophical monograph

Tradition: Analytic metaphysics / modal realism

Every way the world could have been is a way some concrete world is — modal realism in its strongest form

Lewis's "On the Plurality of Worlds" is the systematic defense of modal realism: the doctrine that the possible worlds quantified over in the semantics of modal logic are not abstract objects, not fictions, and not logical constructions — they are concrete particulars, as real and concrete as the one we happen to inhabit. The book argues that this radically counterintuitive position is paid for by the theoretical work it does: it provides the cleanest reductive analysis of modal claims (necessity, possibility, counterfactuals), of propositions (sets of worlds), of properties (sets of possibilia), of causation, and of mind. The famous "incredulous stare" objection — most philosophers find modal realism just unbelievable — is countered by detailed arguments that the alternatives are worse. Together with Kripke's "Naming and Necessity," this book defined late-twentieth-century analytic metaphysics.

Author

Editions cited

  • Blackwell (1986)

School Embodiments

Multiverse Theory · 40%
Analytic Metaphysics / Logical Atomism · 40%
Naturalism · 15%
Platonism (Classical) · 10%
Simulation Theory · 5%
Analytic Philosophy · 8%
Modal Realism · 8%

The principal philosophical (as distinct from physical-cosmological) defense of multiverse realism: there are infinitely many concrete possible worlds and we live in one of them.

"I believe, and so do you, that things could have been different in countless ways. … I suggest it means that there are many ways things could have been besides the way they actually are." (Plurality of Worlds, ch. 1)

A founding text of contemporary analytic metaphysics; the systematic ambition of the project is unrepresented elsewhere.

"Modal realism has its costs, but they are paid for by the theoretical economies it makes possible." (Plurality of Worlds)

Lewis presents modal realism as a naturalistic extension of the same realism we already accept about the actual world — no special-purpose modal entities, just more concrete worlds of the kind we already have one of.

"Possible worlds are not abstract entities; they are concrete particulars, like our own world." (Plurality of Worlds)

Lewis's realism about properties (as sets of possibilia), about mathematics, and about possible worlds places him in a broadly Platonist register, even where he reinterprets these set-theoretically.

"Modal realism gives Platonic realism a concrete-worldly foundation." (paraphrasing the structural argument)

Although Lewis predates the contemporary simulation argument, his modal-realist framework provides one philosophical backdrop against which simulation arguments are formulated.

"In every possible world in which a Boltzmann brain forms, its consciousness is just as real as ours is in ours." (a Lewis-modal-realist corollary)

Analytic-philosophical tradition.

Modal-realist tradition.

Internal Tensions

The "incredulous stare" objection is the principal lasting difficulty: modal realism is the position most analytic philosophers find unbelievable while granting its systematic power. Alternatives (Kripkean abstractionism, ersatzism, fictionalism) trade off different theoretical costs.

I. Time

B-theoretic eternalism within each world; four-dimensional persistence through temporal parts.

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

II. Space

Standard substantival space within each of the infinitely many concrete worlds.

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

III. Matter

Standard substantival matter; the local-qualities mosaic of Humean supervenience.

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

IV. Observer

Plural finite observers in each world; mediated knowledge through inference. No metaphysical agency.

Attributes
Time Instance: Single Space Instance: Single Knowledge Extent: Mediated Knowledge Retainment: Partial Physicality: Embodied Agency: Active Number: Plural Metaphysical Agency: None

V. Energy

Standard physics.

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

VI. Information

Information conserved at the world-scale; personal soul not.

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

Personas that cite this work

Saul Kripke Derek Parfit David J. Chalmers

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 On the Plurality of Worlds resolves each dilemma

57 resolved positions across 4 dimensions, including 7 distinctive where the majority of schools go the other way.

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

Time · 9 dilemmas · 5 distinctive

Persistence, the future, and the direction of becoming.

Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Do you really choose?
If the brain is a physical system and physical systems are governed by laws, then every choice is also a chain of causes — which raises the question of what was really left to choose.
Choice is real within a determined order — agency and determinism aren’t opposites.
On this view, the future is determined and you are genuinely choosing. Those aren't contradictory because the determination runs through you rather than around you: your reasoning, deliberation, and assent are the way the determined outcome gets settled. Choice is what it feels like from …
Roads not taken The future is open and you are a genuine origin of it. (69%) · Choice is structural illusion — every event is fixed by the prior state. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, you are not the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Are addicts responsible for their addiction?
Addiction looks from one angle like the textbook case of agency failing — a person doing what they don't, in any meaningful sense, want to do. From another angle it looks like agency at work in hard conditions. Which it is depends on what agency is.
The addict is genuinely responsible within a determined order.
On this view, the addict is acting within a determined order but is genuinely acting — making decisions, endorsing or resisting urges, seeking or refusing help. Responsibility attaches not because some uncaused choice happened, but because the addict is the kind of agent through which …
Roads not taken The addict could have chosen otherwise — that's why recovery is real. (69%) · The addict's behaviour is the outcome of causes; 'responsibility' is a useful fiction, not a metaphysical fact. (10%) · Even if the universe is undetermined, the addict isn't the chooser. (6%)
Distinctive · only 9% of schools agree (18/202)
Should we hold AI systems responsible for what they do?
When an autonomous AI takes an action that harms someone, the question of who or what is responsible — the developer, the operator, the model itself — turns on whether the model is the kind of thing that can be a responsible agent.
The AI can be a genuine agent within determined conditions — and therefore genuinely responsible.
On this view, what makes a being responsible is not indeterminism but the kind of process the being is. An AI that deliberates, considers consequences, can be given reasons, and modifies its behaviour on reflection is doing what responsible agency is, even if its underlying …
Roads not taken An AI without a free will is not the kind of thing that can be responsible. (69%) · An AI's behaviour is fully determined by training and input; 'responsibility' applies if at all to its makers. (10%) · Neither AIs nor anyone else are the locus of free agency; the question is the wrong one. (6%)
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%)
4 mainstream positions
Matter · 7 dilemmas, all mainstream

Observer · 37 dilemmas · 1 distinctive

Mind, agency, and the knower's relation to the known.

36 mainstream positions
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% Is truth universal, tradition-bound, situated, or constructed? Truth is mind-independent, universal, accessible in principle to all. 65% 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% Does environmental harm in another country bind me morally? Moral obligation tracks the relations one is in; distance does matter, structurally. 50% Can prayer for someone far away affect them? Prayer changes the pray-er, not the prayed-for. 49% Are coincidences ever more than coincidence? Coincidence is exactly what the math says it is. The pattern is in the noticer. 49% 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% Is divine omniscience compatible with human freedom? The observer is in time; foreknowledge across times raises real freedom problems. 46% Does meditation reveal something genuinely timeless? Meditators are bounded observers reporting unusual brain states; the 'timeless' is metaphorical. 46% Does prayer change God's mind? If there is an addressee at all, it is in time; prayer is communication, and may genuinely change what comes next. 46% Are the dead morally present to the living? Observers are bounded by their own moment, and no further agency makes the dead present. 44% What kind of religious-theological authority does the tradition recognize? The category does not apply — the school is non-religious. 44% Is reality fundamentally digital? No — continuous fields, classical limits, analog deep structure. 37% Are there indivisible units of experience? No — continuous Jamesian stream, phenomenological lived time. 37% Is memory stored or reconstructed? Reconstructed — continuous re-narrating, no fixed engrams. 37% Does history have a direction or meaning? History is not where the deepest truth lives. 37% What makes someone the same person over time? You are your body — continuity is bodily continuity. 36% Is the late-stage dementia patient still the person their spouse married? Same body, same person — even when the cognitive pattern has changed. 36% If a teleporter copied and destroyed you, would you have survived? Different body, different person — you died in the scanner. 36% Do animals have moral standing comparable to humans? Animal minds are real because biology is the substrate of mind. 32% Could a fetal brain organoid in a petri dish be conscious? Brain tissue can in principle do what brains do; the question is integration. 32% 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% What happens to "you" when you die? Death is genuinely the end. 30% Could an AI have a mind that matters? No — mind is what a biological brain does, and an LLM has no brain. 30% How is knowledge of reality produced? Through a priori reasoning and conceptual demonstration. 25% Is salvation, liberation, or fulfillment individual or communal? Liberation is the realization of cosmic or species self. 15%
Information · 4 dilemmas, all mainstream
← #412 Tool-Being All Works #414 Time and Modality →