tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343185046065014483.post200825217169461494..comments2022-04-03T09:03:14.172-04:00Comments on BORING THINGS: Powers and impossibilityAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16761276972563441815noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343185046065014483.post-26482401563703549472010-09-02T19:44:22.992-04:002010-09-02T19:44:22.992-04:00I don't think I'm suggesting that. It seem...I don't think I'm suggesting that. It seems to me like an odd way of thinking about the issue. Recast your point in terms of possibility (since I'm proposing that powers are nothing more than possibilities): let x be a person, and let P be the possibility that x can trip. Let W1 be a world in which x trips, and let W2 be a world in which x does not trip. Is this P of x a real relationAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16761276972563441815noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6343185046065014483.post-11567016399203855562010-09-02T08:57:01.359-04:002010-09-02T08:57:01.359-04:00By using possible-world semantics, are you suggest...By using possible-world semantics, are you suggesting the following. x is a person, P is x's power to cry. W1 is a world in which x cries. W2 is a world in which x does not cry.<br /><br />So on this view, is x's P in W1 a real relation to the activity _crying_, but x's P in W2 is not a real relation to the activity _crying_?<br /><br />It seems problematic to say that P is a real Scott Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14109057421298257236noreply@blogger.com