Higher-Order contingentism, Part 3: Expressive limitations

Journal article

Fritz, Peter. (2018). Higher-Order contingentism, Part 3: Expressive limitations. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 47(4), pp. 649 - 671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9443-0
AuthorsFritz, Peter
Abstract

Two expressive limitations of an infinitary higher-order modal language interpreted on models for higher-order contingentism – the thesis that it is contingent what propositions, properties and relations there are – are established: First, the inexpressibility of certain relations, which leads to the fact that certain model-theoretic existence conditions for relations cannot equivalently be reformulated in terms of being expressible in such a language. Second, the inexpressibility of certain modalized cardinality claims, which shows that in such a language, higher-order contingentists cannot express what is communicated using various instances of talk of ‘possible things’, such as ‘there are uncountably many possible stars’.

Keywordscontingentism; higher-order modal logic; expressivity
Year2018
JournalJournal of Philosophical Logic
Journal citation47 (4), pp. 649 - 671
PublisherSpringer Netherlands
ISSN0022-3611
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9443-0
Scopus EID2-s2.0-85025442500
Page range649 - 671
Research GroupDianoia Institute of Philosophy
Publisher's version
File Access Level
Controlled
Place of publicationNetherlands
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/86y99/higher-order-contingentism-part-3-expressive-limitations

Log in to edit

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 104
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 10
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

Higher-order metaphysics : An introduction
Fritz, Peter and Jones, Nicholas K.. (2024). Higher-order metaphysics : An introduction. In In Fritz, Peter and Jones, Nicholas K. (Ed.). Higher-order metaphysics pp. 3-46 Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192894885.003.0001
Being somehow without (possibly) being something
Fritz, Peter. (2023). Being somehow without (possibly) being something. Mind. 132(526), pp. 348-371. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzac052
Operands and instances
Fritz, Peter. (2023). Operands and instances. The Review of Symbolic Logic. 16(1), pp. 188-209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175502032100040X
Axiomatizability of propositionally quantified modal logics on relational frames
Fritz, Peter. (2022). Axiomatizability of propositionally quantified modal logics on relational frames. The Journal of Symbolic Logic. pp. 1-36. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsl.2022.79
Ground and grain
Fritz, Peter. (2022). Ground and grain. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 105(2), pp. 299-330. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12822
Closed structure
Fritz, Peter, Lederman, Harvey and Uzquiano, Gabriel. (2021). Closed structure. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 50, pp. 1249-1291. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-021-09598-5
On Stalnaker’s Simple Theory of Propositions
Fritz, Peter. (2021). On Stalnaker’s Simple Theory of Propositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 50, pp. 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-020-09557-6
On higher-order logical grounds
Fritz, Peter. (2020). On higher-order logical grounds. Analysis. 80(4), p. 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anz085
Propositional quantification in Bimodal S5
Fritz, Peter. (2020). Propositional quantification in Bimodal S5. Erkenntnis. 85, pp. 455 - 465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-018-0035-3
Operator arguments revisited
Fritz, Peter, Hawthorne, John and Yli-Vakkuri, Juhani. (2019). Operator arguments revisited. Philosophical Studies. 176(11), pp. 2933 - 2959. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-018-1158-8
Higher-Order contingentism, Part 2: Patterns of indistinguishability
Fritz, Peter. (2018). Higher-Order contingentism, Part 2: Patterns of indistinguishability. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 47(3), pp. 407 - 418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-017-9432-3
Can modalities save naive set theory?
Fritz, Peter, Lederman, Harvey, Liu, Tiankai and Scott, Dana. (2018). Can modalities save naive set theory? Review of Symbolic Logic. 11(1), pp. 21 - 47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000168
Logics for propositional contingentism
Fritz, Peter. (2017). Logics for propositional contingentism. The Review of Symbolic Logic. 10(2), pp. 203 - 236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000028
A purely recombinatorial puzzle
Fritz, Peter. (2017). A purely recombinatorial puzzle. Noûs. 51(3), pp. 547 - 564. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12172
Counting incompossibles
Fritz, Peter and Goodman, Jeremy. (2017). Counting incompossibles. Mind. 126(504), pp. 1063 - 1108. https://doi.org/10.1093/mind/fzw026
Counterfactuals and propositional contingentism
Fritz, Peter and Goodman, Jeremy. (2017). Counterfactuals and propositional contingentism. Review of Symbolic Logic. 10(3), pp. 509 - 529. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020317000144
Propositional contingentism
Fritz, Peter. (2016). Propositional contingentism. Review of Symbolic Logic. 9(1), pp. 123 - 142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020315000325
Higher-Order contingentism, Part 1: Closure and generation
Fritz, Peter and Goodman, Jeremy. (2016). Higher-Order contingentism, Part 1: Closure and generation. Journal of Philosophical Logic. 45(6), pp. 645 - 695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10992-015-9388-0
First-order modal logic in the necessary framework of objects
Fritz, Peter. (2016). First-order modal logic in the necessary framework of objects. Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 46(4-5), pp. 584 - 609. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2015.1132976
What is the correct logic of necessity, actuality and apriority?
Peter Fritz. (2014). What is the correct logic of necessity, actuality and apriority? Review of Symbolic Logic. 7(3), pp. 385-414. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755020314000136