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.