#Modal Logic

[omegaphilosophia]

The Ontology of Being

The ontology of being is a foundational topic in philosophy, focusing on the study of what it means "to be." It seeks to understand the nature, structure, and categories of existence. Questions about being explore what exists, what it means to exist, and how entities relate to one another within the framework of existence. Central to this inquiry is the differentiation between different modes or dimensions of being, such as material, conceptual, and existential.

Key Concepts:

Existence vs. Essence:

Existence refers to the fact that something is, while essence pertains to what something is.

This distinction is central to existentialist philosophy, as seen in the work of Sartre, who claimed "existence precedes essence."

Substance and Accidents:

Substance refers to what exists independently, while accidents are properties that depend on substances to exist.

This distinction originates from Aristotelian metaphysics.

Ontology and Being-in-the-World:

Heidegger's concept of Dasein (being-there) emphasizes that being is always situated in a specific context, interconnected with others and the world.

Modalities of Being:

Modalities include contingent, necessary, possible, and impossible modes of being, as explored in modal logic and metaphysics.

Categories of Being:

Classical ontology attempts to categorize beings (e.g., physical objects, ideas, emotions).

Modern approaches challenge rigid categories, emphasizing fluidity and relationality.

Relational Ontology:

This perspective sees being as defined by relationships rather than isolated essence.

Key Philosophical Approaches:

Parmenides and Heraclitus:

Parmenides focused on the unity and permanence of being, while Heraclitus emphasized change and becoming.

Aristotle:

Developed categories of being and the idea of potentiality and actuality.

Heidegger:

Reframed ontology through the lens of Dasein and existential questions, distinguishing between beings (Seiende) and Being (Sein).

Contemporary Ontology:

Explores pluralistic and non-essentialist approaches to being, including process philosophy, object-oriented ontology, and phenomenology.

Questions Explored in the Ontology of Being:

What does it mean for something to exist?

Are there different levels or kinds of being?

How does being relate to time, space, and consciousness?

Can being be understood independently of human perception or language?

The ontology of being remains a dynamic field that bridges metaphysics, epistemology, and existential inquiry, engaging with both timeless questions and contemporary challenges.

[in-sightjournal]

Ask A Genius 1446: Dynamic Epistemic Logic, Modal Reasoning, and Neuroplasticity

Rick Rosner is an accomplished television writer with credits on shows like Jimmy Kimmel Live!, Crank Yankers, and The Man Show. Over his career, he has earned multiple Writers Guild Award nominations—winning one—and an Emmy nomination. Rosner holds a broad academic background, graduating with the equivalent of eight majors. Based in Los Angeles, he continues to write and develop ideas while…

[soggybottomboysvevo]

learning about microtones and how western instruments arent built to play them and therefore our music theory doesnt accommodate them when theyre incredibly common and crucial to understanding non-western music literally rewired by brain

[wicabels]

contingently a girl. girlhood as an imported truth across all possible worlds.

[phenoob]

political/historical rpf is special to me because the moral quandary (if there is one) isn't so much "am I respecting these peoples' boundaries?" as "should these awful people be allowed to fuck??"

[the-aspen-grove]

*shakes a whole clinic and the very concept of time itself* I WANNA KNOW WHAT THE RESULTS OF MY NEUROPSYCH EXAM ARE, TELL ME ALREADY

[structures-of-perspective]

With nothing absolute, and time being infinite, change becomes constant. Change is constant. Everything exists because nothing doesn't. The order of anything is subject to the significance of its relations with anything else. Being certain about any of those things is relative to the significance of our accurate knowledge. We are each limited beings.

These types of shapes we create, in attempts to see further with less or do more with ease, delay uncertainty often with the authority of purportedly better reasoning. Yet whose authority is to be trusted? When is proof 'proof enough'?

Lies exist as confounding counterfactuals. They are confabulations built from recombinations of the liar's memories. Necessarily pulling us further from certainty and into the void of uncertainty, the place where the confabulations of faith would guide us away to.

All the guesses or speculations or reimaginings we could ever muster amount to a fleeting drop in the bucket. I believe it is impossible, in any state of being, for anything but everything to know it all; and all of everything, in each and every state, cannot be said with honest certainty to be omniscient, nor omnipotent, nor omnibenevolent, nor omnipresent in the particulars.

Known effects have expected ranges, where local factors take precedence for local effects. As any cloud rolls thru, it passes on the winds which shape it presently, far removed from those of any distant past, a suggestion of what we might see on any tomorrow not too far removed from today.

[pillmillipedes]

well, it doesn't have to work that way.

A good example would be mathematical constructivism (aka intuitionistic logic), a philosophical movement based on the assertion that to prove an object's existence, you must have an explicit way to construct it (contrasted with proof by contradiction).

It's characterized by not subscribing to the laws of excluded middle ("A ∨ ¬A always holds") and double negation elimination ("¬¬A implies A"), and consequently many everyday operations like De Morgan's laws, etc don't work in constructivism.

despite that, a good portion of classical analysis has been proven using it, so I could easily imagine a world where the some very influential mathematitian decided that proofs by contradiction aren't real proofs and got humanity stuck in this framework for a couple centuries.

Why are the laws of logic what they are, as opposed to something else?

This is a bit like asking "why are the laws of physics what they are?", but seemingly even less tractable.

A sufficient answer is not "the laws of logic were made up by man; ask him why he made them up that way!" or something of its ilk. It's true that all explicit systems of logic were devised by people, and that through history people have devised many different such systems in order to reason about the world. But it's likewise true that some conceivable systems of logical inference work better than others to that end. The inference rules of syllogistic logic, classical propositional logic, fuzzy logic, whatever, they all to one degree or another succeed at allowing one to derive new knowledge from old knowledge, new truths from known truths, etc. Some conceivable rules of inference, such as "from two statements, infer the first one" or "from A ∨ B infer ¬B" simply don't work for transforming old knowledge into new knowledge. They are unsuccessful methods of inference. And this would seem to say something about the underlying structure of the world, that some conceivable rules of inference work and others don't. We can, if we strain very hard perhaps, imagine that it was otherwise—we can imagine a world in which "from two statements, infer the first one" does work, although we can hardly say anything about what it would be like.

So, there's my question. Why does logic work the way it does, instead of some other way? Why is the world such that these rules of inference work and those rules of inference don't work?

I have no hope of ever getting an answer to this but I'm very curious.

[melshifting]

― Shifting through history ˚⋆

I am going to share with you (some) examples we can find regarding the existence of shifting throughout the ages, simply to show that it has always been a concept that has always existed.

― #01:         The Theory of Ideas - Plato:   The world we live in is only an imperfect copy of another more perfect and eternal world: the world of Ideas or Forms; everything we see and touch is only an imperfect version of its perfect Idea or Form, which exists on another plane. Our world is changeable and deceptive, while the world of Ideas is immutable and true - In both cases (this and shifting), there is an idea that our everyday perception is not the only way to understand what is ‘real’.

― #02:         Dualism - Descartes:   Best known for his method of doubt, where he questioned everything he couldn't be absolutely certain of — one of his biggest contributions was mind-body dualism, which argued that the mind (thinking, non-physical) and the body (material, physical) are separate substances. He believed that while the body operated like a machine following physical laws, the mind was something different—immaterial and not bound by space or time.

― #03:         Buddhism - Anicca & Anatta:    These 2 principles explain that: 1) everything is constantly changing, including the self, time, and the material world. There is no static "reality"—what we perceive is always shifting. And 2) the self is an illusion—a construct created by memories and thoughts.

― #04:         Modal Realism - David K Lewis:   American philosopher from the last half of the 20th century; his theory explains how all logically possible worlds are as real as our world (the real or actual world).  Every decision, every event, every possibility exists somewhere in a parallel reality. These worlds are not just hypothetical or imaginary; they exist in the same way our universe does, just in separate dimensions.

― #05:         Time traveler Party - Stephen Hawking:   He experimented to test whether time traveling (aka, shifting) to the past was possible. He hosted this 'traveler's party' on June 28, 2009 — but he only sent out the invitations after the event had already happened. The idea was that if time travel were real, someone from the future would see the invitation and travel back in time to attend.

― #06:         Syntergic Theory - Jacobo Grinberg:    If you've been in the shifting community for some time now, you already know him: a neuroscientist and psychologist known for researching on consciousness, the brain, and mystical experiences. His theory suggested that the brain doesn’t just perceive reality, but actively constructs it by interacting with a universal holographic energy field (which contained all information, and mystical experiences like telepathy could be explained by tuning into different parts of it). Mysteriously, he disappeared in 1994, after his theory gained popularity.

― I have presented shifting through philosophers, religions, scientists, and intellectuals' viewpoints, you still believe that shifting is impossible...?

[imagineastrology]

Random Moon Sign Pairings!

*do not steal my work, please give credit if you repost*

Capricorn Moon x Aries Moon 

The biggest challenge is Aries Moon’s impetuous nature compared to Capricorn's more reserved and grounded emotional nature. Aries Moons tend to react quickly - positively or negatively. Capricorn on the other hand - will observe patiently, decide the best course of action - and will then express how they feel. Capricorn may feel confused by their partner's fiery and quick to label them as juvenile or immature. Aries, may view Capricorn's stoic responses predictable and patronising. However, the strengths that help them to be together are that they both love to be active - in the emotional, physical or spiritual sense, they are both cardinal modalities - and will not stay down for long. Capricorn can also learn to say it as they see it from Aries’ boldness. Aries can learn the power of patience and perspective from Capricorn. Ambitious duo! 

Virgo Moon x Cancer Moon 

Both moon signs are very nurturing and caring. However, Virgo is more subtle and reserved emotionally than their Cancer counterpart. Cancer moons are more open with their emotions as they can be more in-tune with them, as opposed to Virgo who will analyse and judge whether their emotions are the ‘right’ ones to feel. Both are actually very sensitive, and seek a world of comfort, security, and family. A difference between them is that Virgo moons prefer logic over subjectivity (Cancer’s emotional needs may feel overwhelming) and Virgo's critical nature can make Cancer feel unsupported or insecure. But, there is a great buffer here for creating a comfortable home life. 

Scorpio Moon x Gemini Moon 

The emotional needs of this duo can, at first, be challenging. Scorpio needs emotional trust, loyalty, and depth. Gemini needs intellectual debates, mental games, and stimulation. They may feel uncomfortable with the consistency and serious emotional nature of scorpio moons - almost as though they are always under a microscope. Scorpio's struggle with Gemini's lighthearted and flighty approach to their emotions may push them to even dominate the gemini. However, Scorpio can give Gemini moon the patience, security and comfort that the gemini needs to feel comfortable enough to settle down, and not be so nervous. Gemini's lighthearted approach can enlighten the scorpio moon to stay with them as they teach them that not everything is so serious and that flexibility is powerful. 

Leo Moon x Leo Moon 

Both share a similar emotional nature and will understand each other. However, it depends on the inner-security of both partners. Not everyone can handle looking ‘at themselves in the mirror’ in the emotional sense. Both are expressive, warm, and genuine - so both will nurture and appreciate their need to feel special and validated. They will encourage each other to be the best and to celebrate their individuality. However, there can be slight power struggles as both need to feel seen, and when angered, they can both become self-absorbed and self-aggrandising, leading to fights for affection. For the most part, their shared ability to focus on love, kindness, and fun can override those moments of insecurity as both intend to focus on positivity and opportunity.

[copperbadge]

Hi Sam! I wanted to ask if you feel lately like you've been getting anything positive out of your therapy, because a lot of your initial thoughts about it kind of mirror mine. I'm very logical (except when I'm upset at myself) and very skeptical, so I feel like a therapist either isn't going to tell me anything new, or that I'm going to just disregard it because I can't trick myself into believing things that I just plain don't believe.

But I'm also starting to come to a realization, two years after my ADHD diagnosis and letting go (without therapy!) of most of the executive dysfunction-fueled self worth issues I was having, that I'm kind of Not Okay in other ways. I'm safe —going to work every day and doing my job so I won't lose my livelihood and have never had a self harm urge in my life— But I'm not really okay. I'm having major self esteem issues related to my personality separate from the executive dysfunction that are putting me in a bad place. I don't want to take antidepressants for reasons I won't go into but that means my other option is therapy and... I don't know if I'm a person that therapy will actually work on. I found a lot of validation in some of your perspectives, about affirmations being bullshit and "mindfulness" exercises feeling impossible and useless, about not having an inner monologue and how that might be causing issues with traditional methods. So I was just wondering, do you feel like therapy is working now that you've been in it longer?

I've wasted a lot of money on "elective" (and ultimately useless, back to square one) medical nonsense this year and I'm not eager to waste more, but I've also met my insurance deductible so it's the best time to try it if I'm going to.

I mean, it depends on the modality a little but I don't think trying basic talk therapy can hurt, as long as you find a decent therapist. And it's better to try it now when you're feeling Mostly Okay than waiting until you are Really Not Okay. But this entire paragraph comes with a lot of context so....

A lot of what I talked about in terms of struggling with mindfulness, etc. was less related to the therapy I am still in than it was to the DBT class I took at Therapist's suggestion. We were both aware that she was basically throwing stuff at the wall to see what stuck, and while it was an interesting class I don't think for me it was helpful. As you mention, I struggled with affirmations and visualization since neurologically I'm not really set up for those; I don't think they're objectively bullshit but I do think there's an assumption within the mental health industry that they will have function for everyone and that's simply untrue, and the expectation that it will is very damaging. I also struggled with the physical-intervention aspects (called TIPP usually) which didn't work at all for me and felt frankly like doctor-approved self harm. DBT can get very culty, which set off a ton of red flags for me -- possibly false flags, but they still waved real big.

And that's because I also have a lot of trust issues surrounding therapy. To the point where, the minute one of the people running the DBT class made actually quite gentle fun of me for asking a question he couldn't answer, I checked out on anything he said. We were learning about a DBT concept called Wise Mind and I asked, "If wise mind is an identifiable mental state, how do we know if we're in it?" and when he couldn't quite answer beyond "It's different for everyone" I said, "But if we know it's real there must be some kind of common denominator, a measurable data point," and he said "Well, Sam, you're not going to levitate" and the rest of the class laughed. Sorry bud, this is almost certainly an over-reaction, but I'm me and you lost me when you came at me instead of just admitting you didn't know. (Also it turns out I just live in Wise Mind like 80% of the time which is one reason I couldn't tell.)

But basic talk therapy outside of DBT is just...you talk at someone about your problems and come up with ways to try and solve them, which is a lot more straightforward and way less frustrating. You have to be an active participant, you have to both have a goal and be willing to discuss reaching it, but that goal can be as simple as just "figure out what my mental health goals should be" at first. You don't have to learn like, vocabulary for it.

The thing is, while I have seen some improvement in regulation issues, I also struggle with basic talk therapy. Most people, and this blew my mind, see measurable improvement in nine to eighteen therapy sessions. A lot of people don't go long-term, they just are having a moment and get help getting through the moment and then can disengage, with their therapist's approval.

I was in therapy consistently from the age of nine to eighteen and only stopped because I reached legal majority and physically refused to go.

Not one minute of those nine years did I want to be there. And, because none of the three therapists I saw across those years actually explained to me why I was there or how therapy worked, for me it felt like "Your punishment for having feelings is to speedrun every feeling you had this week in an hour, to a stranger." There was also what my current therapist believes to be some extremely unethical behavior going on, which didn't help.

So it has taken actually a lot of time to get to a place where I would even allow her to understand what help I need. I've been in therapy for about a year (generally weekly but there have been some gaps) and it has only recently gotten deeper than very basic interpersonal problem-solving.

Like, two weeks ago I told her, "I had a thought this week that I couldn't tell you about something I was doing because then you'd have material on me" (meaning blackmail material) "and that's a fucked-up thing to think." And once I'd actually identified it as fucked up I had zero issue telling her about it, wasn't even nervous as I did so. Who's she going to tell? She's literally legally constrained from telling.

I think well over half of what she does is either validate that whatever emotion I'm having is normal, affirm my reactions so I don't keep believing I behaved weirdly, or praise something I've done that was a positive act. Does this work? Not always, because I'm unfortunately very aware that it's part of her job to do those things. But yeah, sometimes. Even if you don't fully believe it, "Hey that was a really smart move" is nice to hear. Sometimes she helps me come up with a plan for stressful future events or (rarely) behavior modification, and sometimes she either provides me with research or points me towards research I can do on my own. We don't do meditation or affirmations or stuff like that.

Like, last week I brought up the fact that I hadn't really ever thought about how if I have a disability that causes emotional dysregulation and I got it from my parents, they also likely had undiagnosed emotional dysregulation when raising me. So she said I should look into research on children with emotionally dysregulated parents. I was pretty annoyed by what I found (the ONE TIME adults are the focus instead of the kids is the ONE TIME I needed to learn about the kids, really?) but it led to something that was both informative and upsetting, so we discussed that. And when I was stumped about how to move forward with the information, she suggested that my general coping mechanism of writing about it was probably a good plan.

(At which point I just silently advanced my powerpoint presentation to the next slide, where I had a series of quotes from the Shivadh novels where Michaelis, acting as a parent, repeatedly does the exact opposite of the upsetting thing, because I realized even before the meeting that it's an ongoing theme in my work whenever I deal with people being parents. It's a good thing she has a sense of humor and also that I do.)

So yeah. Going into therapy you have to be ready to reject a therapist if you don't like them or if they get weird and pushy, you have to be ready to be a self-advocate, but you are the client; it shouldn't be super difficult to find someone who can at least walk you through what you want from it and agree not to do the stuff you don't want, and if you want to stop going you just...stop going.

Good luck, in any case! I hope you get what you need, whether or not that ends up being therapy.

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Modality

The philosophy of modality is a branch of metaphysics that deals with the concepts of possibility and necessity. It explores the nature of different modes of truth, such as what is possible, what is necessary, and what might have been. These discussions are crucial for understanding a wide range of philosophical issues, from the nature of reality to the structure of language and logic.

Key Concepts in the Philosophy of Modality

Possible Worlds:

Concept: Possible worlds are a way to conceptualize different ways the world might have been. They provide a framework for discussing possibility and necessity.

Argument: Philosopher David Lewis famously argued for the existence of a plurality of possible worlds, where each possible world is as real as the actual world we live in. Other philosophers, like Saul Kripke, use possible worlds as a heuristic device rather than claiming their literal existence.

Modal Logic:

Concept: Modal logic is a formal system that extends classical logic to include operators that express modality (necessity and possibility).

Argument: In modal logic, □ represents necessity ("necessarily") and ◇ represents possibility ("possibly"). For example, □P means "P is necessarily true," and ◇P means "P is possibly true."

Necessity and Contingency:

Concept: Necessity refers to what must be the case, while contingency refers to what could be the case but is not necessarily so.

Argument: Philosophers distinguish between different types of necessity, such as logical necessity (true in all possible worlds) and metaphysical necessity (true in all worlds that share certain fundamental structures).

Essence and Accidents:

Concept: Essential properties are those that an entity must have to be what it is, while accidental properties are those that an entity can have but does not need to have.

Argument: Aristotle first distinguished between essence and accidents, and contemporary modal metaphysics continues to explore this distinction in the context of possible worlds and modal properties.

De Re and De Dicto Modality:

Concept: De re (about the thing) modality pertains to the properties of things themselves, while de dicto (about the saying) modality pertains to statements or propositions.

Argument: For example, "It is possible that the tallest building is in New York" (de dicto) vs. "The tallest building might have been in New York" (de re). The former is a statement about the possibility of a proposition, while the latter is about the possibility of a property of an object.

Theoretical Perspectives on Modality

Realism vs. Anti-Realism about Possible Worlds:

Realism: David Lewis’s modal realism posits that all possible worlds are as real as the actual world.

Anti-Realism: Saul Kripke and others argue that possible worlds are useful fictions or conceptual tools rather than concrete realities.

Actualism vs. Possibilism:

Actualism: The view that only the actual world and its contents exist, and possible worlds are just abstractions.

Possibilism: The view that possible entities (those that could have existed but do not actually exist) are as real as actual entities.

Essentialism vs. Anti-Essentialism:

Essentialism: The belief that entities have essential properties that define their identities.

Anti-Essentialism: The rejection of essential properties, arguing that what we consider essential is often context-dependent or constructed.

Epistemic Modality:

Concept: Epistemic modality concerns what is possible or necessary given what is known.

Argument: It deals with statements about knowledge and belief, such as "It might rain tomorrow" (epistemically possible) vs. "It must be raining now because I hear thunder" (epistemically necessary).

The philosophy of modality addresses some of the most fundamental questions about the nature of reality, possibility, and necessity. By exploring different possible worlds, the nature of essential properties, and the formal structures of modal logic, philosophers seek to understand the complex ways in which different modes of truth interact and shape our understanding of the world.

[cursed-40k-thoughts]

Sorry. But do marines get a bigger thang when they get a bigger everything else? Is there a penis enlargement portion of the surgeries? If not, do they look very silly with human sized peckers on giant bodies?

Semi related. If they ARE larger, then they may be harder to use in the traditional way: dangerous, don’t want to have that one scene form family guy. This leaves one solution: an Astartes who wants to be sexually active with a human is almost definitely getting pegg—” *Bolter shot*

Oh. Yeah. It’s alluded to a couple times that different marines are personally well-endowed. Everything scales up when they get larger.

Also, let’s be really honest here, it’s not that much of a physical imposition when you look at the shit people wilfully fit in themselves. For some people, sure, for others, no. And that’s if the marine is well endowed. Despite what the internet would have you think, modal dick size for adult humans is 5-6 inches, give or take. Scaling a human up into a marine, proportionally, would logically only add a few inches to their junk at most. A marine with an 8 or 9 inch dick still has a big dick compared to what most humans are accustomed to. It’s all relative.

[wicabels]

contingently a girl. girlhood as an imported truth across all possible worlds.

[meltorights]

this argument might work actually.......... hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

i hate philosophy

[caviarsonoro]

Caroline Shaw : Taproot (Music from the Motion Picture “Julie Keeps Quiet”).

Taproot is one of the central pieces Caroline Shaw composed for the soundtrack of Julie Keeps Quiet, the second feature film by Belgian director Leonardo Van Dijl. Released in 2025, the film sensitively explores the emotional silence of a young gymnast, and Shaw’s music not only accompanies this intimate universe but articulates it from within. Far from any illustrative function, Taproot operates as a quiet expressive core, a root, as the title suggests, from which the protagonist’s internal discourse imperceptibly grows. Its sonority is delicate, almost vulnerable, as if each note were asking for permission to exist. Formally, the piece avoids any conventional narrative. It unfolds like an autonomous organism, without center or climax, built on minimal repetitions and the subtlest timbral variations. Time seems to dilate. The orchestration is austere, with strings treated using extended techniques such as natural harmonics, sul tasto, and muffled pizzicatos, alongside extremely soft dynamics and an intensive use of acoustic space as an expressive element. The writing avoids any overt tension and is based on a suspended modal logic with an almost spectral tendency to emphasize resonance over contour. The music does not move in the traditional sense; it inhabits a state of continuous suspension. It is, in a way, a form of slow breathing. A discreet presence. What stands out in Taproot is not only its formal restraint but its ability to move without resorting to the obvious. There is a kind of intensity in this music that does not manifest in gesture but in anticipation and microstructure. The piece feels composed of held breaths and empty spaces that give meaning to each sonic event. The choice not to resolve and to remain at the threshold generates an emotional tension that, although subtle, is persistent. As Alex Ross noted in his 2025 review for The New Yorker, "Shaw does not write music to direct the gaze but to expand the inner silence". And that silence, profound and full of latent nuance, becomes the true protagonist.