Insensitive etc etc

Photos and videos of the Japan earthquake strike me as surreal.



More here.

You might think that I wouldn't find it surreal if I were affected by it. I don't think so. If a loved one died in it the feeling of loss would probably overwhelm any other feeling. But I would still think the images are surreal. If I were going to be swallowed up by a tsunami, a few thoughts would race through my mind. One of them would be that I'm going to finally know what's it like after death. Another thought would be that the earth and the universe will still go on without me, without any one of us. I think I would feel surreal then.

Hmm

I'm interested in modal realism. That is the view that possible worlds are real entities. A possible world is a world in which our actual world might have been. You might be out in a bar now instead of being in your home reading this entry. This translates to: there is a possible world in which you are out in a bar now. There is also a possible world in which the roof collapses on you after you are finished reading this entry. There is virtually an infinite number of ways the actual world could be, especially when you permutate the various possibilities, and include various trivial matters such as the pen on your desk could have been one centimetre to the left than it actually is.

One motivation for this theory is that it provides an account of what possibility and necessity means. What exactly is going on when you say, "It's possible he won the match he in fact lost." Well, simply this: There is a possible world in which a counterpart of him (a person similar in relevant aspects to him) did win the match. It's this analysis that makes the quoted statement true, and thus coherent. Note that this is a personal interpretation of mine. David Lewis doesn't actually says this, which brings me to my next point.

Lewis, the key proponent of modal realism, writes in a rather dense way. He packs a lot of things into his paragraphs and sometimes doesn't elaborate much. It's like he expects you to be well-versed in philosophy. Other times he writes amusingly, or in a witty manner, which adds color when I find more elaboration would be better. This is unfortunate for me because I can't fully appreciate his theory as much as my counterparts in worlds where Lewis writes in a simpler manner do.

The main reason why I'm interested in this theory is because it grips my imagination. It takes my breath away.

Some people will agree wholeheartedly

Against Sylvia Lim's accusation of gerrymandering in Aljunied GRC, SM Goh has this to say: “Actually the electoral boundary is not the critical factor. The most important factors will be the quality of the candidates and the reputation of the party.”

Against the "inevitable accusations of gerrymandering", The Straits Times has this to say:

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating - and it looks like the opposition is set to contest all the SMCs and all but two of the 15 GRCs. If the alleged gerrymandering were so coercive as to assure the ruling party of a free ride in every instance, the opposition would not be planning to contest so many seats - the most they have in decades.

One dodges the issue, the other assumes that the presence of Opposition contestation indicates lack of unfair play. No one says gerrymandering (Sg version) assures the ruling party a free ride. Whether it gives them an easier ride in an unfair manner is another matter.