Originally Posted by Flying_Dutchman
I was talking about David Lewis, author of The Plurality of Worlds.
As for Van Inwagen, do you agree with his views about the passage of time, time and identity, and the existence of fictional characters?
I haven't read that book, but I've discussed possible world theory. I think it has a few issues such as nominalism, that is giving our phrases or the idea of "possibility" a concreteness that is assumed rather than proven, not to mention the issues with time and decision making that aren't addressed. It has a bit of the same issue that cartesian thinking does, that is, you can't define something into existence.
I only remember Van Inwagen's argument about the existence of fictional characters, and like I stated before, he is a quintessential neoplatonist in my eyes and while I haven't heard his arguments about the others, I'm probably very safe in assuming I disagree with him.
My main problem with platonists is that the divison of any object in order to carve out the "real object" is arbitrary. Basically, the space between where the chair ends and the floor begins is filled with an infinite number of "real objects". the "right way"(his words) that constitutes an object is arbitrary. I assume he does the same thing with time, saying we can't divide up moments and where do we draw the line, etc.? my response is, why are we dividing up that which only exists in perception anyways?