Subjunctive possibility

Subjunctive possibility (also called aletheic possibility or metaphysical possibility) is the form of modality most frequently studied in modal logic. Subjunctive possibilities are the sorts of possibilities we consider when we conceive of counterfactual situations; subjunctive modalities are modalities that bear on whether a statement might have been or could be true--such as might, could, must, possibly, necessarily, contingently, essentially, accidentally, and so on. Subjunctive possibilities include logical possibility, metaphysical possibility , nomological possibility, and temporal possibility .

Contents

1 Subjunctive possibility and other modalities 1.1 Epistemic possibility 1.2 Deontic possibility 2 Types of subjunctive possibility

Subjunctive possibility and other modalities

Subjunctive possibility is contrasted with (among other things) epistemic possibility (which deals with how the world may be, for all we know) and deontic possibility (which deals with how the world ought to be).

Epistemic possibility

The contrast with epistemic possibility is especially important to draw, since in ordinary language the same phrases ("it's possible," "it can't be", "it must be") are often used to express either sort of possibility. But they are not the same. We don't know whether Goldbach's conjecture is true or not (no-one has come up with a proof yet); so it's (epistemically) possible that it's true and it's (epistemically) possible that it's false. But if it is, in fact, provably true (as it may be, for all we know), then it would have to be (subjunctively) necessarily true; what being provable means is that it would not be (logically) possible for it to be false. Similarly, it might not be at all (epistemically) possible that it's raining outside--we might know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not--but that would hardly mean that it's (subjunctively) impossible for it to rain outside.

Deontic possibility

Although there is some overlap in language between subjunctive possibilities and deontic possibilities (we sometimes use "You can/cannot do that" to express what it is or isn't subjunctively possible for you to do, and sometimes use it to express what it would or wouldn't be right for you to do), the two are less likely to be confused in ordinary language than subjunctive and epistemic possibility. There are some important differences in the logic of subjunctive modalities and deontic modalities: in particular, subjunctive necessity entails truth (you can infer that Jones does V the fact that Jones must logically V; but in this vale of tears you cannot make the same inference from the fact that Jones must morally V.)

Types of subjunctive possibility

There are several different types of subjunctive modality, which can be classified as broader or more narrow than one another depending on how restrictive the rules for what counts as "possible" are. Some of the most commonly discussed are:

• Logical possibility is usually considered the broadest sort of possibility; a proposition is said to be logically possible if there is no logical contradiction involved in its being true. "Dick Cheney is a bachelor" is logically possible, though in fact false; most philosophers have thought that statements like "If I flap your arms very hard, I will fly" are logically possible, although they are nomologically impossible. "Dick Cheney is a married bachelor," on the other hand, is logically impossible; anyone who is a bachelor is therefore not married, so the sentence involves a logical contradiction.

• Metaphysical possibility is either equivalent to logical possibility or narrower than it (what a philosopher thinks the relationship between the two is depends, in part, on the philosopher's view of logic). Some philosophers have held that discovered identities such as Kripke's "Water is H₂O" are metaphysically necessary but not logically necessary (they would claim that there is no formal contradiction involved in "Water is not H₂O" even though it turns out to be metaphysically impossible).

• Nomological possibility is possibility under the actual laws of nature. Most philosophers since David Hume have held that the laws of nature are metaphysically contingent--that there could have been different natural laws than the ones that actually obtain. If so, then it would not be logically or metaphysically impossible, for example, for you to travel to Alpha Centauri in one day; it would just have to be the case that you could travel faster than the speed of light. But of course there is an important sense in which this is not possible; given that the laws of nature are what they are, there is no way that you could do it. (Some philosophers, such as Sydney Shoemaker , have argued that natural laws are in fact necessary, not contingent; if so, then nomological possibility is equivalent to metaphysical possibility.)

• Temporal possibility is possibility given the actual history of the world. David Lewis could have chosen to take my degree in Accounting rather than Philosophy; but there is an important sense in which he cannot now. The "could have" expresses the fact that there is no logical, metaphysical, or even nomological impossibility involved in Lewis's having a degree in Accounting instead of Philosophy; the "cannot now" expresses the fact that that possibility is no longer open to becoming actual, given that the past is as it actually is.