BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260605T202643Z
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20150917T121500
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20150917T141500
SUMMARY:Does Standard Modal Logic Adequately Represent Metaphysics?
UID:20260609T210936Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm
TZID:Australia/Melbourne
LOCATION:Old Physics Building\, Melbourne\, Australia
DESCRIPTION:<p><strong>Abstract:</strong> Standard alethic modal logic accepts the equivalence of necessarily and not possibly not ([]&part\;&equiv\;~&loz\;~&part\;).&nbsp\; Standard deontic logic accepts the equivalence of obligatory to and not permissible not to (OB&part\;&equiv\;~PE~&part\;).&nbsp\; Standard tense logic accepts the equivalence of has at all times and has not at some time not (H&part\;&equiv\;~P~&part\;).&nbsp\; I argue that the purposes of metaphysics are not best served by standard alethic modal logic.&nbsp\; In so arguing\, I exploit the structural similarities between standard alethic modal logic and standard deontic and tense logic.&nbsp\; In section I\, I argue that counterexamples arise to OB&part\;&equiv\;~PE~&part\;\, H&part\;&equiv\;~P~&part\;\, and []&part\;&equiv\;~&loz\;~&part\;.&nbsp\; In section II\, I suggest two ways of modifying standard modal logic to block the counterexamples.&nbsp\;&nbsp\;</p>
ORGANIZER:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR