Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

pdf version of the entry
Possible Objects
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2020/entries/possible-objects/
from the Summer 2020 Edition of the
Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy
Edward N. Zalta Uri Nodelman Colin Allen R. Lanier Anderson

Principal Editor Senior Editor Associate Editor Faculty Sponsor
Editorial Board
http://plato.stanford.edu/board.html
Library of Congress Catalog Data

ISSN: 1095-5054
Notice: This PDF version was distributed by request to mem-

bers of the Friends of the SEP Society and by courtesy to SEP
content contributors. It is solely for their fair use. Unauthorized
distribution is prohibited. To learn how to join the Friends of the
SEP Society and obtain authorized PDF versions of SEP entries,
please visit https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/ .
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Copyright c 2020 by the publisher
The Metaphysics Research Lab
Center for the Study of Language and Information
Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305
Possible Objects
c 2020 by the author
Copyright
Takashi Yagisawa
All rights reserved.
Copyright policy: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/copyright/
Possible Objects
First published Fri Apr 15, 2005; substantive revision Tue Jan 9, 2018
Deep theorizing about possibility requires theorizing about possible

objects. One popular approach regards the notion of a possible object as
intertwined with the notion of a possible world. There are two widely
discussed types of theory concerning the nature of possible worlds:
actualist representationism and possibilist realism. They support two
opposing views about possible objects. Examination of the ways in which
they do so reveals difficulties on both sides. There is another popular
approach, which has been influenced by the philosophy of Alexius
Meinong. The Meinongian approach is relevant to theorizing about
possible objects because it attempts to construct a general theory of
objects other than ordinary concrete existing objects. Independently of the
debate about the nature of possible worlds or about Meinongianism, it is
not always as straightforward as it may at first appear to determine
whether putative possible objects are indeed possible. Another category of
object similar to that of a possible object is the category of a fictional
object. Although initially attractive, the idea that fictional objects are
possible objects should not be accepted blindly. An important instance of
theoretical usefulness of possible objects is their central role in the
validation of two controversial theorems of a simple quantified modal
logic.
1. What They Are

2. Possible Worlds
2.1 Possibilist Realism
2.1.1 Modal Counterpart Theory
2.1.2 Modal–Dimensionalism
2.1.3 Specificity Problem
2.2 Actualist Representationism
1
Possible Objects
2.2.1 Nesting Problem

2.2.2 Essence Solution
2.2.3 Other Solutions
3. Without Possible Worlds
3.1 Subsistence vs. Existence
3.1.1 Theory of Non-Existent Objects
3.1.2 Theory of Encoding
4. Unicorns
5. Fictional Objects
6. Quantified Modal Logic
Bibliography
Academic Tools
Other Internet Resources
Related Entries
1. What They Are

Possible objects—possibilia (sing. possibile)—are objects that are
possible. What it is to be an object—which is a basic and universal
metaphysical category—will not be discussed but will be simply assumed
as understood. What it is to be possible is the focus. Possibility of an
object should be understood in tandem with another notion, namely,
actuality. The two notions are related at least in the following way: (i)
every actual object is a possible object. A more controversial relation
between the two notions is expressed as follows: (ii) not every possible
object is an actual object, that is, some possible object is a non-actual
object.
There is a wide-spread conservative view on objects, which says that any

object is an actual object. In other words, the adjective ‘actual’ is
redundant, for it excludes no object. From this it follows that non-actual
2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Takashi Yagisawa
possible objects are not objects, that is, they are nothing. Thus on this
view, the adjective ‘possible’ is equivalent to ‘actual’ when applied to
objects and (ii) is false. This makes the notion of a possible object, or
equivalently the notion of an actual object, uninteresting. The notion of an
object is the basic notion and does all the work. There is another
conservative view on objects, which does not deal in actuality or
possibility directly. It deals in existence instead. It is the view that any
object is an existing object. On this view, the following analog of (ii) is
false: not every object is an existing object, that is, some object is a non-
existing object. This view makes the notion of an existing object
equivalent to that of an object; existence adds nothing to objecthood. If we
combine talk of actuality and talk of existence, we obtain five alternative
conservative views with varying degrees of conservatism:
(1) Any object is an actual existing object;
(2) Any object is an actual object, that is, it is either an actual existing
object or an actual non-existing object;
(3) Any object is an existing object, that is, it is either an actual

existing object or a non-actual existing object;
(4) Any object that is actual is an existing object;
(5) Any object that exists is an actual object.
(1) is a stronger claim than the other four. (2) and (3) are stronger than (5)
and (4), respectively. (1)-(3) give characterizations of all objects, whereas
(4) and (5) are more limited in scope. When the verb ‘exists’ is understood
with the most comprehensive domain of discourse (assuming the
availability of such a domain), (5) is known as actualism. If the domain of
discourse for ‘exists’ is stipulated to consist only of actual objects, (5) is
trivial and compatible with possibilism, the position which says that some
Summer 2020 Edition 3

Possible Objects
object is outside the domain consisting of all actual objects; cf. (ii). Most
of those who advertise their positions as actualist hold not only (5) with
the most comprehensive domain of discourse in mind but also (1), and
therefore (2)-(4) as well. There are some theorists who hold (5), or at least
do not deny (5), but deny (1). They do so by denying (3), that is, by
maintaining that some object is a non-existing object. Such a view is one
version of Meinongianism. But let us start with actualism and possibilism.
We shall first examine possibilism. It is superficially the most

commonsensical position. It is superficially commonsensical to hold that
some objects are not actual: e.g., Santa Claus, the Fountain of Youth. If we
understand this view in terms of existence, that is, as the claim that there
are—that is, there exist—some objects that are not actual, we have
possibilism. As we have noted, ‘exist’ here should not mean “actually
exist” but should be understood with a larger domain of discourse in mind.
Such a domain is the domain containing not only actual objects but also
non-actual possible objects as genuine objects. To flesh out the idea of
such a domain as proposed by the best-known version of possibilism, it is
necessary to start with the idea of a possible world. After we articulate and
examine possibilism as couched in the possible-worlds framework, we
shall discuss versions of actualism also couched in the possible-worlds
framework. We shall then examine other theories outside the possible-
worlds framework.
2. Possible Worlds
According to the framework of possible worlds, all alethic modal
statements involving possibility are existential quantifications over
possible worlds and all alethic modal statements involving actuality are
singular statements about a particular possible world, namely, the actual
world (Kripke 1959, 1963a, 1963b). For example, to say that Julius Caesar
was possibly not assassinated is to say that Julius Caesar was not

Takashi Yagisawa
assassinated at some possible world, and to say that Julius Caesar was
actually assassinated is to say that Julius Caesar was assassinated at the
actual world. Likewise with existence: to say that Julius Caesar possibly
existed is to say that Julius Caesar existed at some possible world, and to
say that Julius Caesar actually existed is to say that Julius Caesar existed
at the actual world. Assuming that the actual world is a possible world, it
follows that if Julius Caesar actually existed, he possibly existed.
In general, any object that actually exists possibly exists. Assuming that
actuality (of an object) is nothing but actual existence and possibility (of
an object) is nothing but possible existence, this grounds the plausible
conceptual connection between actuality and possibility noted earlier: (i)
every actual object is a possible object. The overall philosophical merit of
the possible-worlds framework cannot be judged without close scrutiny of
its metaphysical foundations. Specifically, the two key questions which
need to be asked are: “What are possible worlds in general?” and “What is
the actual world in particular?” Metaphysical theorizing about possible
worlds goes back at least to Leibniz, but the contemporary theorizing is
pursued largely on two distinct fronts; possibilist realism and actualist
representationism.
2.1 Possibilist Realism
Possibilist realism takes non-actual possible objects to be (real, genuine)

objects; it takes their metaphysical status to be on a par with that of actual
objects. When possibilist realists assert, “Non-actual possible objects
exist”, their word ‘exist’ has the same linguistic meaning as when
actualists assert, “Actual objects exist”. Possibilist realists believe that
some domains of discourse with respect to which ‘exist’ may be
understood include more than actual objects, whereas actualists deny it.
Thus according to possibilist realism, to call an object non-actually
possibly existent is merely to deny its inclusion in a particular realm—call

Possible Objects
it ‘actuality’—and affirm its inclusion in some other realm. That other

realm is no less a realm of existence than actuality is a realm of existence.
All realms of existence are metaphysically on a par with one another.
Every token use of the existence predicate is to be understood with respect
to some realm of existence, either explicitly or implicitly.
What distinguishes actuality from all other realms? The leading answer is
due to David Lewis, who is the proponent of the best-known version of
possibilist realism, namely, modal counterpart theory. Lewis’s view on
actuality is known as the indexical theory of actuality (Lewis 1970). The
basic idea is that actuality for us is the realm which includes us, and more
generally, actuality for x is the realm which includes x. But there are many
different realms which include us: this room, this building, this town, this
continent, this planet, this galaxy, this minute, this hour, this day, this
month, this year, this century, etc. So, to fix our actuality as a unique realm
which includes us, Lewis takes the largest spatiotemporal whole which
includes us. More precisely, actuality for us is the maximal
spatiotemporally related whole of which we are (mereological) part. In
general, actuality for x is the maximal spatiotemporally related whole of
which x is part. For anything to exist non-actually-for-x but possibly is for
it to be part of some realm outside actuality for x, that is, to be part of
some maximal spatiotemporally related whole of which x is not part. Note
that this is a reductionist view of existence, both actual and non-actual
possible. Existence is first relativized to a maximal spatiotemporally
related whole, and then existence in such a whole is defined reductively in
terms of (mereological) parthood. Lewis characterizes possible worlds as
maximal spatiotemporally related wholes. Actuality is the actual world,
and all other maximal spatiotemporally related wholes are non-actual
possible worlds.
A possible object is simply a part of a maximal spatiotemporally related

whole (Lewis 1986). (Strictly speaking Lewis prefers to say “analogically

Takashi Yagisawa
spatiotemporal” instead of “spatiotemporal” but we shall let that pass.) By

most criteria, Lewis’s possible worlds, hence also his possible objects, fall
under the label ‘concrete’ rather than ‘abstract’. Every non-actual possible
object (apart from pure Cartesian egos, perhaps) is a spatiotemporal object
and bears no spatiotemporal relation to any actual object, or to any
possible object exiting at any possible world at which it does not exist.
This makes non-actual possible objects as real as non-actual possible
worlds. It is worth while to remind ourselves that this does not make it
automatically true to say that non-actual possible objects exist, even if we
accept non-actual possible worlds. Whether it is true to say so depends on
the domain of discourse with respect to which the existence predicate is to
be understood.
2.1.1 Modal Counterpart Theory
On Lewis’s modal counterpart theory, every possible object is confined to

one possible world. Indeed, Lewis defines a possible object as an object all
of whose parts exist at some single possible world (Lewis 1986: 211). This
conception of a possible object forces Lewis to resort to his counterpart
theoretic account of modality de re (Lewis 1968). According to any
possible-worlds theory of modality, to say that you could have been the
leader of a religious cult is to say that at some possible world you are the
leader of a religious cult. According to Lewis, to say that at a possible
world you are the leader of a religious cult is to say that at that possible
world there is a counterpart of you, that is, someone who resembles you to
sufficient degrees in relevant respects, who is the leader of a religious cult.
The counterpart relation is a similarity relation in most cases (but arguably
not in all cases). As such, it is not an equivalence relation. This affords
Lewis ample theoretical maneuverability but at the same time causes him
some theoretical trouble. For example, as Lewis himself admits, his
counterpart theoretic account of modality either yields the consequence

Possible Objects
that every actual object necessarily exists or yields the consequence that
some actual object is not identical to itself (Lewis 1983: 32). There is also
a famous complaint voiced by Saul Kripke (Kripke 1972: 344–45, note
13). It in effect says that whether someone other than you is the leader of a
religious cult at some possible world is irrelevant to whether you could
have been the leader of a religious cult. Lewis’s reply to this is that the de
re character of the possibility is preserved by the stipulation that the
person who is the cult leader is the counterpart of you, rather than the
counterpart of someone else, at an appropriate possible world. For an
attempt to avoid counterparts and still retain a broadly Lewisian realistic
framework, see McDaniel 2004.
A significantly different counterpart theory is proposed by Delia Graff

Fara (Fara 2008, 2012). Fara analyzes modality de re in terms of sortal
sameness rather than similarity. She clearly distinguishes sortal sameness
(e.g., “is the same boat as”) from identity (“is identical with”), and this
qualifies her analysis as a version of counterpart theory: a given boat is F
at a world if and only if at that world something that is the same boat as--
rather than identical with--that given boat is F. This also somewhat
alleviates Kripke’s famous complaint against counterpart theory. Suppose
that a boat B is actually made up of a hunk of wood W and a small plank P
is a proper part of W. It is intuitively sensible to hold that B is identical
with W, that B could have lacked P as a part, and that W could not have
lacked P as a part. But this intuitive view appears internally incoherent. If
B is identical with W and W could not have lacked P as a part, then it
appears that B also could not have lacked P as a part; in other words, B
without P appears to be an impossible object. On Fara’s analysis, B could
have lacked P if and only if at some possible world, some x is such that x
is the same boat as B and x lacks P, and W could have lacked P if and only
if at some possible world, some y is such that y is the same hunk of wood
as W and y lacks P. Since y may not be the same boat as x (e.g., y may not
be a boat at all), there is not even an appearance of inconsistency with the

Takashi Yagisawa
latter lacking (a counterpart of) P and the former not lacking it. Thus, even
if B is identical with W and W could not have lacked P, B could have
lacked P, i.e., B without P is a possible object even though W without P is
not. Whereas Lewis invokes similarity, which is relative to contextually
shifting respects, Fara invokes sortal sameness, which is less shifty. Fara’s
counterpart theory also interestingly avoids denying the necessity of
identity.
Independently of his counterpart theory, Lewis’s definition of a possible

object has some peculiar consequences, given that existence in general is
understood as bearing of the part-of relation to the whole that constitutes
the domain of discourse. Take any two possible worlds w1 and w2. Lewis
wants to assert that both w1 and w2 exist in some sense. So for the
assertion to be true, it must be true relative to a domain of discourse which
contains as a sub-domain some whole of which both w1 and w2 are part.
Not both are part of a single possible world or of its part. The smallest
whole of which they both are part is the (mereological) sum of w1 and w2.
So, some domain D containing such a sum as a sub-domain must count as
an acceptable domain of discourse for the evaluation of an existence
claim. Consider a proper part p1 of w1 and a proper part p2 of w2. Let
Gerry be the sum of p1 and p2. Then it is true to say that Gerry exists
when the domain of discourse is D. So, there is a sense in which Gerry
exists. In fact it is the same sense in which w1 and w2 exist. But Gerry is
not a possible object, according to Lewis’s conception, for Gerry does not
have all of its parts at a single possible world. This is peculiar. Gerry is an
object which exists in the same sense in which possible worlds exist but
Gerry is not a possible object. Since—as sanctioned by the universality of
mereological summation, which Lewis accepts—Gerry is an object, Gerry
is an impossible object. But there is nothing impossible about Gerry any
more than there is about the sum of w1 and w2. Perhaps the sum of w1 and
w2 is an impossible object, too. But this idea flouts the initially plausible
principle of recombination for possibility of objects, which says that if x is

Possible Objects
a possible object and y is a possible object independent of x, then the

totality consisting exactly of x and y is a possible object. Defenders of
Lewis’s theory may take this to mean that the principle of recombination,
despite its initial plausibility, is to be rejected. There is another unexpected
consequence of Lewis’s theory. If the sum of w1 and w2 is an impossible
object, then the sum of all possible worlds is an impossible object, for the
former is part of the latter and no impossible object is part of a possible
object. But this makes the domain in which all possible worlds reside, or
“logical space”, an impossible object. This appears unwelcome. Lewis
does consider an alternative conception of a possible object, which says
that a possible object is an object every part of which exists at some
possible world or other (Lewis 1986: 211). This allows a possible object to
have parts at different possible worlds. Lewis, who accepts the
universality of mereological summation, does not deny that possible
objects in this sense are as real as possible objects in his preferred sense.
He however dismisses them as unimportant on the ground that we do not
normally name them, speak of them, or quantify over them. But given that
sets of possible worlds and sets of possible objects figure in important
philosophical discussions concerning the identity of propositions and
properties, these sets seem important. If the sum of the members of an
important set is important, then Lewis’s dismissal appears hasty. Again,
defenders of Lewis may stand this line of reasoning on its head and
conclude that the sum of the members of an important set is not always
important.
A useful overview of various issues concerning Lewis’s possibilist

realism, as well as actualist representationism, is found in Divers 2002,
which is the first systematic attempt to defend parts of Lewis’s theory
since Lewis 1986. Cameron 2012 presents a defense of Lewis’s reductive
analysis of modality. Loux 1979 is the standard anthology of classical
writings in modal metaphysics in 1963–79.

Takashi Yagisawa
2.1.2 Modal–Dimensionalism
Lewis’s is the most developed version of possibilist realism based on

possible worlds. As a result, discussion of possibilist realism almost
always focuses exclusively on Lewis’s version. There are, however, other
versions of possible-worlds-based possibilist realism, and one of them
deserves a brief mention. Assume that the universe is spread out in three-
dimensional space and persists through one-dimensional time. The non-
Lewisian version of possibilist realism in question may then be called
‘modal–dimensionalism’. It says that in addition to the four physical
(spatiotemporal) dimensions, the universe has modal dimensions. Possible
worlds are points in modal space as defined by the modal axes just as
physical spatiotemporal points are points in physical spacetime as defined
by the four physical spatiotemporal axes, and possible objects “persist”
through possible worlds. A version of modal–dimensionalism is what W.
V. Quine argued against when he took himself to be arguing against a
typical possibilist realism (Quine 1976), and it is arguably the view many
possible-worlds theorists adumbrated, however vaguely and inchoately, as
the representative possibilist realist theory before Lewis forcefully
articulated his own version.
Modal–dimensionalism differs from Lewis’s theory in a number of

important respects but the most striking is the absence of counterpart
theory. Modal–dimensionalism eschews counterparts and proposes that to
say that you are the leader of a religious cult at a possible world is to say
that you yourself exist at that world and are the leader of a religious cult at
that world. Another difference between modal–dimensionalism and
Lewis’s theory is that unlike the latter, the former avoids the merelogical
conception of the existence of a possible object at a possible world.
According to modal–dimensionalism, just as a temporally or spatially
persisting object is (arguably) not part of the temporal or spatial points or

Possible Objects
regions at which it exists, a modally persisting object is not part of the

possible worlds at which it exists. Modal–dimensionalism also differs
from Lewis’s theory in not being a thoroughly reductionist theory. It does
not analyze the notion of a possible world in mereological terms but leaves
it as largely primitive (Yagisawa 2002, 2010, 2017). This enables modal–
dimensionalists to allow the possibility of there being no concrete object,
whereas on Lewis’ theory, if there is no concrete object, there is no
possible world. For a different attempt to reconcile possibilist realism with
the possibility of the non-existence of anything concrete, see Rodriguez-
Pereyra 2004.
Though free from some difficulties inherent in Lewis’s theoretical

machinery, modal–dimensionalism has its own obstacles to overcome, not
the least of which is to make substantive sense of the idea of an object’s
persisting not just in physical space and time but in modal space. One idea
is to mimic the “endurantist” approach to temporal persistence and say
that a possible object persists through many possible worlds by having all
of its parts existing at each of those worlds. Another idea is to mimic the
“perdurantist” approach to temporal persistence and say that a possible
object persists through many possible worlds by having different parts
(world stages) at different possible worlds and being the modal-
dimensional “worm” consisting of those world stages. Note that this does
not make the object mereological part of a possible world at which it
exists. It only makes each of the object’s world stages part of the object.
Lewis, in contrast, has it that a possible object has all of its parts at a
single possible world (where they are merelogical part of that world) and
therefore does not persist through different worlds at all. Despite these
differences, Lewis, speaking of the “perdurantist” version of modal–
dimensionalism, says that it is but a notational variant of his own theory.
He then proceeds to criticize it (Lewis 1968: 40–2). Lewis formulates his
opposition to modal–dimensionalism more carefully in Lewis 1986: 213–
20. Achille Varzi derives Lewis’s theory from a theory similar to modal–

Takashi Yagisawa
dimensionalism (Varzi 2001). Unlike modal–dimensionalism, the theory

he uses follows Lewis and defines the existence of a possible object at a
possible world in terms of the object being mereological part of the world.
Varzi notes some differences between this theory and Lewis’s. Vacek 2017
defends modal-dimensionalism from some objections.
2.1.3 Specificity Problem
It is well known that Quine fiercely objects against the ontology of non-
actual possible objects. Referring to an unoccupied doorway, he asks
whether the possible fat man in the doorway and the possible bald man in
the doorway are one possible man or two possible men (Quine, 1948). The
point of this rhetorical question is that there is no serious issue here
because we have no non-trivial criterion of identity for non-actual possible
objects. No respectable ontology should embrace objects for which we
have no non-trivial criterion of identity. Quine encapsulates this in his
famous slogan: “No entity without identity”. Actual ordinary mid-sized
objects have vague boundaries, so the sorites argument may be used to
show that we have no coherent non-trivial criterion of identity for them.
Quine’s slogan then appears to apply to such objects. Some take this to be
good reason against the ontology of actual ordinary mid-sized objects,
whereas others take this to be good reason against Quine’s slogan.
Whatever the ultimate fate of Quine’s slogan may be, there is an objection
against possibilist realism which, while not explicitly invoking Quine’s
slogan, is at least Quinean in spirit. It goes as follows:
Lewis’s possibilist realism faces the problem of specifying non-actual

possible objects. Take Vulcan, the innermost planet between Sun and
Mercury erroneously believed to exist by some astronomers in the
nineteenth century, when the universe was assumed to be Newtonian.
Vulcan is not actually between Sun and Mercury or actually anywhere at

Possible Objects
all. Vulcan also does not actually have any mass, shape, or chemical
composition. Still it is possible that Vulcan be a unique planet between
Sun and Mercury and have a particular mass m, a particular shape s, and a
particular chemical composition c. Or so it seems. It is also possible, it
seems, that Vulcan be a unique planet between Sun and Mercury and have
a slightly different particular mass mʹ, a slightly different particular shape
sʹ, and a slightly different particular chemical composition cʹ, where the
slight differences in question lie within the range of deviations the original
astronomers would have tolerated. So at some possible world w Vulcan is
a unique planet between Sun and Mercury and has m, s, and c, and at some
possible world wʹ Vulcan is a unique planet between Sun and Mercury and
has mʹ, sʹ, and cʹ. Clearly w and wʹ are different worlds. On Lewis’s theory,
every possible object exists at only one world. So either the planet in
question at w is not Vulcan or the planet at wʹ is not Vulcan. Whichever
planet that is not Vulcan is Vulcan’s counterpart at best. Is either planet
Vulcan? If so, which one? If neither is, where is Vulcan? What possible
world hosts Vulcan? There seems to be no non-arbitrary way to answer
these questions within Lewis’s theory.
The modal-dimensionalist version of possibilist realism is capable of

offering the ready answer, “The planet at w and the planet at wʹ are both
(world stages of) Vulcan”, but faces an only slightly different challenge of
its own. It seems intuitive to say that there is a possible world at which
Vulcan exists between Sun and Mercury and some remote heavenly body
distinct from Vulcan but qualitatively identical with it in relevant respects
(such as mass, shape, size, chemical composition, etc.) also exists. Let w1
be such a world and call Vulcan’s double at w1 ‘Nacluv’. Thus at w1,
Vulcan and Nacluv exist, Vulcan is between Sun and Mercury, and Nacluv
is somewhere far away. It is possible for Vulcan and Nacluv to switch
positions. So there is a possible world, w2, which is exactly like w1 except
that at w2 Nacluv is between Sun and Mercury and Vulcan is far away.
Since Vulcan and Nacluv are two distinct objects, w1 and w2 are two

Takashi Yagisawa
distinct worlds. But this difference seems empty. Given that w1 and w2 are
exact qualitative duplicates of each other, on what ground can we say that
the object between Sun and Mercury at w1 and far away at w2 is Vulcan
and the object far away at w1 and between Sun and Mercury at w2 is
Nacluv, rather than the other way around? It is unhelpful to say that
Vulcan and Nacluv are distinguished by the fact that Vulcan possesses
Vulcan’s haecceity and Nacluv does not. An object’s haecceity is the
property of being that very object (Kaplan 1975, Adams 1979, Lewis
1986: 220–48). Since what is at issue is the question of which object is
Vulcan, it does not help to be told that Vulcan is the object possessing the
property of being that very object, unless the property of being that very
object is clarified independently. To say that it is the property of being that
very object which is Vulcan is clearly uninformative. It is not obvious that
there is any way to clarify it independently.
Alternatively, one might choose to insist that if anything at any possible

world is Vulcan, it has to possess at that world the properties relevant to
the introduction of the name ‘Vulcan’, such as being the heavenly body
with such-and-such mass and orbit and other astrophysical characteristics
and being between Sun and Mercury in a Newtonian universe. This is
supported by descriptionism concerning the semantics of proper names,
according to which ‘Vulcan’ is a proper name which is semantically
equivalent to a definite description (‘the heavenly body with such-and-
such mass and ...’). But forceful criticisms of descriptionism for proper
names were launched in the early 1970s (Donnellan 1972, Kripke 1972).
Kripke’s criticism has been especially influential. The kernel of Kripke’s
criticism rests on the intuitive idea that a sentence containing a referring
proper name expresses a singular proposition about the referent
independently of any qualitative characterization of the referent but that a
corresponding sentence containing a description does not so express a
singular proposition. If Kripke’s criticism applies to ‘Vulcan’, it is difficult
to defend descriptionism for ‘Vulcan’. But ‘Vulcan’ and other apparent

Possible Objects
proper names of non-actual possible objects may not be as readily

amenable to the Kripkean considerations as proper names of actual objects
are. The so-called “problem of empty names” is the problem of providing
a semantic theory for “empty names” like ‘Vulcan’ as non-descriptional
designators. For some recent contributions to the project of solving this
problem, see Braun 1993, 2005, Everett & Hofweber 2000, Brock 2004,
Piccinini & Scott 2010, Cullison & Caplan 2011, Kripke 2013.
2.2 Actualist Representationism
According to actualist representationism, which is also known under

Lewis’s tendentious label ersatzism, a possible world is an actual
maximally consistent representation of how the universe could possibly
have been, and the actual world is the representation of how the universe
actually is. A representation r is maximally consistent if and only if r is
consistent and for any representation rʹ, either r & not-rʹ is not consistent
or r & rʹ is not consistent (assuming the appropriate conceptions of the
negation and conjunction of representations). Different actualist
representationists employ different actual items to play the role of the
maximally consistent representations, such as sentences, propositions,
states of affairs, properties, etc. (Adams 1974, Armstrong 1989, Bigelow
and Pargetter 1990, Carnap 1947, Cresswell 1972, Forrest 1986, Hintikka
1962, Jeffrey 1965, Lycan 1979, Lycan & Shapiro 1986, Plantinga 1974,
1987, Prior & Fine 1977, Quine 1968, Roper 1982, Skyrms 1981,
Stalnaker 1976). Note that the notion of consistency of a representation is
not ultimately eliminated in actualist representationism. Most actualist
representationists accept consistency as a modal notion, for they doubt it
can be reduced to a non-modal notion, such as a proof-theoretic notion or
a model-theoretic notion. If those actualist representationists are right and
consistency is indeed a modal notion, then actualist representationism is
not a reductionist theory of modality. This, however, should not

Takashi Yagisawa
automatically be taken to be a serious challenge to actualist

representationism, for a thoroughly reductionist theory of modality may or
may not be feasible. Not even every possibilist realist believes in thorough
reduction; cf. modal–dimensionalists.
It is important to note that according to most versions of actualist

representationism, the universe, as it (actually) is, is not the actual world.
Since the actual world is a possible world and every possibly world is a
representation, the actual world is a representation. The universe, as it
(actually) is, is not a representation but includes all representations, along
with everything else. But it does not include non-actual possible objects.
The universe includes all and only those objects which exist.
In actualist representationism, existence is conceptually prior to actual

existence. This is in concert with the priority of the truth of any
proposition P over the actual truth of P. P is actually true if and only if P
is true at the actual world, which in turn is so if and only if the actual
world represents P as true. And by definition, the actual world is the
possible world which represents P as true if and only if P is true.
Likewise, for an object to exist at the actual world is for the actual world
to represent it as existing; the actual world represents an object as existing
if and only if the object exists. Actual existence is thus reducible to
existence simpliciter.
Non-actual possible existence is defined as existence at some possible

world other than the actual world, which in turn is defined in terms of
existence simpliciter as follows: x exists at a possible world w not identical
with the actual world if and only if x would exist if w were actual, that is,
if the universe were as w represents it to be. According to this picture,
non-actual possible existence is not a special mode of existence
completely separate from actual existence. It is not existence simpliciter,
but instead “would-be” existence simpliciter on a counterfactual

Possible Objects
supposition. There is no room for non-actual possible objects in this

picture. Many representations which are possible worlds other than the
actual world include representations of the existence of non-actual
possible objects, but non-actual possible objects are not mereological part
of those possible worlds. Neither are they set-theoretic members, or
constituents in any other sense, of those possible worlds. For them to exist
at those possible worlds is for the worlds to say (represent) that they exist;
nothing more, nothing less. This is a non-realist picture of the existence of
the non-actual. Non-actual possible objects are thus nothing at all. This is
the conservative view (1).
Let us examine how actualist representationists handle apparent modal

truths asserting the possibility of non-actual objects. There are two types
of such truth and the first type is easy to handle. It is possible that Julius
Caesar (congenitally) had a sixth finger on his right hand (whereas, we
assume, he actually had only five fingers). This possibility only calls for a
possible world to represent Julius Caesar as having had a sixth finger on
his right hand, which may easily be done by means of, say, the (interpreted
English) sentence, ‘Julius Caesar had a sixth finger on his right hand’.
2.2.1 Nesting Problem
The second type of apparent modal truth, however, is more challenging.

Julius Caesar could have had a sixth right finger which was never burnt
but which could have been burnt. This involves a nested possibility, which
is troublesome to actualist representationism (McMichael 1983). To reveal
the nesting clearly, let us articulate the possibility in question in a more
pedantic and rigorous way. The following is possible: Julius Caesar had a
sixth right finger such that (a) it was never burnt, and (b) the following is
possible: it was burnt. The trouble for actualist representationism is that
there is no obvious way to make sense of the pronoun ‘it’ in (b). The

Takashi Yagisawa
possibility of Julius Caesar having had a sixth right finger which was
never burnt is, as before, easily representable by, say, the sentence, ‘Julius
Caesar had a sixth right finger which was never burnt’. This means that the
pronoun ‘it’ in (a) is unproblematic; it is replaceable by ‘Julius Caesar’s
sixth right finger’. How about the pronoun ‘it’ in (b)? It should designate
the sixth right finger Julius Caesar is said to have had within the scope of
the first possibility operator. It should therefore be bound by the
appropriate existential quantifier, just like the pronoun ‘it’ in (a). But
unlike the pronoun ‘it’ in (a), the pronoun ‘it’ in (b) occurs separated from
the quantifier by the intervening second possibility operator, ‘the
following is possible’. This “quantifying in” from outside the possibility
operator forces the sentence representing the possibility specified in (b) to
retain the pronoun ‘it’: ‘it was burnt’. Thus, unlike the pronoun ‘it’ in (a),
the pronoun ‘it’ in (b) is not eliminable in the representation of the
possibility in question. But no part of the representation that is the possible
world in question, or any other possible world, may serve as the object
which the pronoun ‘it’ in (b) designates, as the pronoun needs to designate
something that is said to be a human finger but no part of any such
representation is said to be a human finger. Notice that Lewis has no
corresponding difficulty here. On his theory, the modal statement in
question is true if and only if at some possible world there is a counterpart
of Julius Caesar who had a sixth right finger f such that f was never burnt
and at some possible world there is a counterpart of f which was burnt.
Julius Caesar, his counterpart, and the counterpart’s sixth finger f are all
real objects, and the pronoun ‘it’ in (b) designates f. (Note that the pronoun
‘it’ in (b) does not designate the counterpart of f any more than ‘it’ in (a)
does.)
One way to handle this without postulating a non-actual possible object is

to say that there was an actual finger belonging to someone else and that it
could have belonged to Julius Caesar’s right hand as his extra finger
(congenitally). If this sounds biologically too bizarre, actualist

Possible Objects
representationists may say instead that there are actual elementary

particles none of which was part of Julius Caesar’s body but which
collectively could have constituted his sixth right finger. This is along the
lines of David Kaplan’s possible automobile (Kaplan 1973: 517, note 19)
and Nathan Salmon’s Noman (Salmon 1981: 39, footnote 41). Kaplan
imagines a complete set of automobile parts laid out on a factory floor
ready for assembly. If the parts are assembled, a particular automobile will
be created; if not, not. Suppose that the parts are destroyed before they are
assembled. Then the particular automobile which would have been created
if the parts had been assembled is in fact not created. It is a non-actual
possible automobile. Salmon, taking a cue from Kripke’s suggestion of the
necessity of origin (Kripke 1972), imagines a particular human egg and a
particular human sperm which could merge into a particular human zygote
and develop into a particular human being. Suppose that the egg and the
sperm in fact fail to merge, hence fail to develop into a human being. The
particular human being, Noman, who would have been created if the egg
and the sperm had merged and developed normally is in fact not created.
Noman is a non-actual possible human being. These lines of thought
afford actualist representationists a powerful means to accommodate many
apparently recalcitrant modal truths about non-actual possible objects,
provided that these non-actual possible objects can be individuated
uniquely by means of actually existing potential parts or origin. In fact, it
may even be taken further to afford actualist representationists a way to
maintain that Kaplan’s automobile is not only possible but is an actual
object after all. This can be done by not only individuating Kaplan’s
automobile uniquely by means of the collection of the automobile parts
but also identifying it with the collection. Call Kaplan’s automobile ‘k’.
Suppose that k is identical with the collection. Then there exists an actual
object, namely k, which actually is not an automobile but is a collection of
automobile parts and which is possibly an automobile. That is, k is
represented as an unassembled collection of automobile parts by the actual

Takashi Yagisawa
world and is represented as an automobile by some possible world.

Similarly, actualist representationists may identify Noman with the
collection of the egg and the sperm. Noman is an actual object which
actually is not a human being but is a collection of an egg and a sperm and
which is possibly a human being. The case of Julius Caesar’s sixth finger
can be handled likewise. There exists an actual object which actually is
not a finger but is a (widely scattered) collection of particles and which is
possibly Julius Caesar’s sixth right finger.
But now consider the planet Vulcan. There is no collection of actual

particles which were supposed to constitute Vulcan. So, if Vulcan is a non-
actual possible object, which it apparently is, it seems possible for Vulcan
to exist and not be constituted by any actual particles differently located
and arranged. Likewise, it seems perfectly possible that Julius Caesar had
a sixth finger which was not constituted by any actually existing particles
and satisfied (a) and (b). Despite initial plausibility, actualist
representationists may choose to deny such a possibility. To do so is, in
effect, to commit oneself to the position that the universe, as it actually is,
already contains maximally possible constituents of any possible state of
the universe, that is, it is impossible for the universe to contain even a
single constituent object not already in the universe as it actually is. To
make this plausible is not an easy task. If, on the other hand, actualist
representationists choose not to deny the possibility in question, they
appear to have to say that Julius Caesar’s entirely new sixth finger is not
an object but is possibly an object. But then the problem is to make sense
of the finger’s being nothing yet possibly something. How can there be a
true predication of any kind, including “is possibly an object”, of nothing?
(Oliver & Smiley 2013 offers the beginning of a partial answer to this
question.)

Possible Objects
2.2.2 Essence Solution
Alvin Plantinga is responsible for a widely-discussed actualist

representationist response to this problem. He invokes unactualized
individual essences (Plantinga 1974, 2003). Every object is said to have an
individual essence. An individual essence of a given object is a property
which that object necessarily has and everything else necessarily lacks.
Moreover, and this is crucial to the solution of the problem at hand,
individual essences are independent of the objects which have them,
whether the objects are actual or non-actual. That is, an individual essence
can exist without being an individual essence of any existing object. The
problematic pronoun ‘it’ in (b) is then said to designate such an individual
essence, and the rest of the characterization of the possibility in question is
appropriately and systematically reinterpreted. For example, ‘it was burnt’
in (b) is reinterpreted to mean that the individual essence in question is an
individual essence of something that was burnt.
One difficulty with this view is the failure to produce a single plausible
example of such an essence. We saw that possibilist realism faces the
problem of specifying non-actual possible objects. Plantinga’s version of
actualist representationism faces its own version of the Quinean challenge,
namely, the problem of specifying the individual essences which are
supposed to replace non-actual possible objects. What individual essence
did Julius Caesar have? What readily comes to mind is the property of
being Julius Caesar. As Ruth Barcan Marcus and Kripke have forcefully
argued (Barcan 1947, Marcus 1961, Kripke 1972), identity is necessary;
that is, if an object x is identical with an object y, it is necessarily the case
that x is identical with y. Given this, it is easy to see that Julius Caesar
necessarily had the property of being Julilus Caesar and everything other
than Julius Caesar necessarily lacks it. However, it is implausible to
suggest that this property is independent of Julius Caesar. Our canonical

Takashi Yagisawa
specification of it by means of the noun phrase ‘the property of being

Julius Caesar’ certainly is not independent of our canonical specification
of Julius Caesar by means of the name ‘Julius Caesar’, and this does not
seem to be an accidental fact merely indicative of the paucity of our
language devoid of deep metaphysical underpinnings. Kaplan’s
automobile and Salmon’s Noman merely push the dependence of the
individual essence to the level of the constituent parts or origin of the
object of which it is an individual essence. This difficulty is magnified
when we ask for a specification of an individual essence of Vulcan or
Julius Caesar’s entirely new finger. For more on individual essence, see
Adams 1981, McMichael 1983, Fine 1985, Menzel 1990, Lycan 1994,
Linsky & Zalta 1994, Plantinga 2003.
2.2.3 Other Solutions
Theodore Sider proposes a different solution to the nesting problem (Sider

2002). According to his proposal, we should not regard different non-
actual possible worlds as achieving their representation more or less
independently of one another. Instead, we should regard all possible
worlds as representations which are given all at once in concert with one
another so that cross references to non-actual possible objects by different
possible worlds are guaranteed from the outset.
Reina Hayaki proposes yet another solution (Hayaki 2003). When we say
that Julius Caesar had an unburnt sixth right finger at some possible world
w1, we take w1 to represent Julius Caesar as having an unburnt sixth right
finger. When we say further that that finger at w1 was burnt at a different
possible world w2, we should likewise take w2 to represent that finger as
having been burnt. According to Hayaki, this requires a hierarchical
arrangement of possible worlds in which the representation of the finger
by w2 is parasitic on the representation by w1.

Possible Objects
Other solutions to the nesting problem include the claim that despite
strong appearance to the contrary, there are no modal statements about
objects which do not actually exist; see Adams 1981, Fitch 1996.
3. Without Possible Worlds

Some important theories concerning possible objects and related issues do
not invoke possible worlds as a theoretical cornerstone. Most prominent
among them are so-called Meinongian theories. But before turning to
them, let us briefly take note of two non-Meinongian approaches outside
the framework of possible worlds: Kit Fine’s and Michael Jubien’s.
Like Plantinga, Fine takes individual essences seriously but he regards the
notion of necessity as prior to the notion of a possible world, and the
notion of an individual essence as prior to the notion of necessity (Fine
1994, 1995a, 1995b, 2000). Fine’s modal theory is based on the broadly
Aristotelian idea that alethic modality stems from natures of things.
Understanding of actual or non-actual possible objects should therefore be
firmly grounded on understanding of natures of things. Fine believes that
‘There is a possible object x’ is reducible to ‘Possibly there is an object x’
(Prior and Fine 1977: 130–9, Fine 1979, 1981, 2003). For a similar
reductive proposal, see Peacocke 1978, 2002. For some difficulties with
such a project, see Hazen 1976.
Jubien builds his modal theory out of properties and their relations (Jubien
1996, 2009). The possibility of Julius Caesar’s having had an entirely new
sixth right finger satisfying (a) and (b) is analyzed roughly as follows: the
property of being a particular sixth finger on Julius Caesar’s right hand is
simultaneously compatible with the properties of existing, being
composed of non-actual stuff, and being never burnt, and also
simultaneously compatible with the properties of existing, being
composed of non-actual stuff, and being burnt. The underlying idea is to

Takashi Yagisawa
start with the ontology of stuff and use properties and relations, including
modal properties and relations, as the fundamental metaphysical items to
account for all statements about objects, including all modal statements
about possible objects. It specifically avoids talk of non-actual possible
objects. It, however, does not avoid talk of non-actual possible stuff. So it
does embrace the ontology of the non-actual possible in a broad sense.
3.1 Subsistence vs. Existence
Alexius Meinong’s theory of objects has had much influence on some

contemporary theorists, resulting in a variety of proposals. These
proposals are known broadly as Meinongian. According to Meinong, a
subject term in any true sentence stands for an object (Meinong 1904). So
the subject term in the sentence, ‘The sixth right finger of Julius Caesar is
a finger’, stands for an object, assuming that the sentence is true. (Such an
assumption is strongly disputed in Salmon 1987.) Even though the exact
respects in which contemporary Meinongian proposals are Meinongian
and the extent of their Meinongianism differ from one proposal to another,
all of them inherit this claim by Meinong in some form. They are thus
united in resisting Bertrand Russell’s criticism of Meinong, which
mandates analyzing sentences containing a definite description, like the
one above concerning the sixth right finger of Julius Caesar, as general
statements rather than singular statements (Russell 1905); see 3.1.2 for a
particularly famous piece of Russell’s criticism and how two leading
Meinongian theories handle it.
Meinong distinguishes two ontological notions: subsistence and existence.

Subsistence is a broad ontological category, encompassing both concrete
objects and abstract objects. Concrete objects are said to exist and subsist.
Abstract objects are said not to exist but to subsist. The talk of abstract
objects may be vaguely reminiscent of actualist representationism, which
employs representations, which are actual abstract objects. At the same

Possible Objects
time, for Meinong, the nature of an object does not depend on its being
actual. This seems to give objects reality that is independent of actuality.
Another interesting feature of Meinong’s theory is that it sanctions the
postulation not only of non-actual possible objects but also of impossible
objects, for it says that ‘The round square is round’ is a true sentence and
therefore its subject term stands for an object. This aspect of Meinong’s
theory has been widely pointed out, but non-trivial treatment of
impossibility is not confined to Meinongianism (Lycan & Shapiro 1986).
For more on Meinong’s theory, see Chisholm 1960, Findlay 1963,
Grossmann 1974, Lambert 1983, Zalta 1988: sec.8. For some pioneering
work in contemporary Meinongianism, see Castañeda 1974, Rapaport
1978, Routley 1980. We shall examine the theories of two leading
Meinongians: Terence Parsons and Edward Zalta. We shall take note of
some other Meinongians later in the section on fictional objects, as their
focus is primarily on fiction. Parsons and Zalta not only propose accounts
of fictional objects but offer comprehensive Meinongian theories of
objects in general.
3.1.1 Theory of Non-Existent Objects
Quine thought it curious that the ontological problem was so simple as to

be put in three monosyllables: “What is there?” He famously answered
this simple question equally simply: “Everything” (Quine 1948). Parsons
rejects Quine’s claim that every object exists, and asserts that some objects
do not exist. Parsons proposes a theory of all objects, both existent and
non-existent (Parsons 1980). He uses the word ‘actual’ as a synonym for
‘existent’, so he rejects (1), (2), and (3), but accepts (4) and (5) as
trivialities. It would be a mistake to classify him as an actualist simply
because he accepts (5). On the contrary, he has much in common with
possibilists in claiming that some objects are not actual, that is, in denying
(2). He, however, admits only one sense of existence and claims that some

Takashi Yagisawa
objects do not exist in that sense. If this sole sense of existence

corresponds to the possibilist conception of existence relativized to any
domain of discourse smaller than the largest available domain, then
Parsons is in agreement with possibilists. But if it corresponds to the
possibilist conception of existence relativized to the largest available
domain, then Parsons’ ontology goes beyond that of possibilists. There is
good evidence that the latter is the case, for Parsons’ ontology, as a
typically Meinongian ontology, includes the round square and other
impossible objects, which the possibilist ontology does not include.
Lewis’s discussion (Lewis 1990) of how the non-Meinongian should
understand “noneism”, which is the view that some things do not exist,
held by another Meinongian, Richard Routley (later Richard Sylvan), is
helpful in this connection. For differences between Routley’s theory and
Parsons’, see Parsons 1983. A sympathizer of Routley, Graham Priest,
uses dialetheism (the thesis that some contradictions are true) and
paraconsistent logic, along with the (possible- and impossible-) worlds
framework, to bolster noneism (Priest 2005, 2016).
Parsons’ theory is based on the Meinongian distinction between nuclear

and extra-nuclear properties. Nuclear properties include all ordinary
properties, such as being blue, being tall, being kicked by Socrates, being
a mountain, and so on. Extra-nuclear properties include ontological
properties such as existence and being fictional, modal properties such as
being possible, intentional properties such as being thought of by Socrates,
and technical properties such as being complete. See Parsons 1980: 24–27,
166–74 for more on nuclear and extra-nuclear properties and a test for
distinguishing between them. Parsons’ theory can be encapsulated in the
following two principles:
(P1) No two objects have exactly the same nuclear properties;

Possible Objects
(P2) For any set of nuclear properties, some object has all the nuclear
properties in the set and no other nuclear properties.
Take the set of nuclear properties, {being golden, being a mountain}. By

(P1) and (P2), some unique object has exactly the two nuclear properties
in the set. That object is the golden mountain. Take another set of nuclear
properties, {being square, being round}, and the two principles give us the
round square. Both of these objects are radically incomplete; they have no
weight, height, shape, or size, for example. The need for distinguishing
nuclear properties from extra-nuclear properties is readily seen by
considering the set, {being golden, being a mountain, being existent}. If
(P2) is to apply to such a set, it should yield an object having the three
properties in the set. Such an object is golden, a mountain, and existent,
that is, it is a golden mountain which exists. So it should be true that a
golden mountain exists, but it is in fact not true. Parsons defines a possible
object as an object such that it is possible that there exist an object having
all of its nuclear properties. On this conception, all existing objects are
possible objects, some golden mountains are possible objects, and the
round square is not a possible object. It is worth noting that in Parsons’
theory, negation needs to be handled delicately (Parsons 1980: 19–20,
105–06, Zalta 1988: 131–34). Take the set, {being round, being non-
round}. By (P2), we have an object, x, which is round and non-round. So,
x is non-round. If we can infer from this that it is not the case that x is
round, then we should be entitled to say that x is round and it is not the
case that x is round, which is a contradiction. Thus, we should not be
allowed to infer ‘It is not the case that x is round’ from ‘x is non-round’.
If Julius Caesar’s entirely new right finger satisfying (a) and (b) is to be a
Meinongian object of Parsons’ theory, the best candidate appears to be a
non-existent incomplete object corresponding to the set of properties,
{being a finger, belonging to Julius Caesar’s right hand, being never
burnt}. This set includes neither the property of being constituted by

Takashi Yagisawa
particles which do not (actually) exist nor the property of being possibly
burnt. Both of these properties are extra-nuclear properties, hence
ineligible to be included in a set to which (P2) applies. So (P2) does not
confer them on the object corresponding to the set. How then does the
object come to have the properties? It is not obvious how this question
should be answered (Parsons 1980: 21, note 4, where Parsons says, “The
present theory is very neutral about de re modalities”), but we should at
least note that on Parsons’s theory, objects are allowed to have properties
not included in their corresponding sets of nuclear properties: e.g., the
round square, whose corresponding set only includes roundness and
squareness, has the property of being non-existent and the property of
being incomplete. Also, Parsons allows nuclear properties which are
“watered-down” versions of extra-nuclear properties. So the set may
include the “watered-down” versions of the two extra-nuclear properties in
question and that may be enough. For more on these and related issues in
Parsons’ theory, see Howell 1983, Fine 1984.
3.1.2 Theory of Encoding
Zalta’s theory is based on the distinction made by Meinong’s student,

Ernst Mally, between two kinds of predication: exemplification and
encoding (Mally 1912, Zalta 1983, 1988). The idea is to maintain the
Meinongian claim that the round square is a genuine object while avoiding
contradicting oneself. Russell argues that since the round square is round
and square, and since if an object is square it is not the case that it is
round, it follows that the round square is such that both it is round and it is
not the case that it is round, which is a contradiction. Parsons avoids the
contradiction by refusing the inference from ‘x is square’ to ‘it is not the
case that x is round’, where ‘x’ ranges over all objects. In contrast, Zalta
accepts the inference for all objects and avoids the contradiction by
refusing to interpret the predication, ‘is round and square’, of the round

Possible Objects
square as exemplification. He instead interprets it as encoding; the round

square encodes roundness and squareness. Encoding squareness is not
incompatible with encoding roundness, even though exemplifying
squareness is incompatible with exemplifying roundness. Predication as
understood as encoding follows a different logic from predication as
understood as exemplification. The crux of Zalta’s theory is encapsulated
in the following two principles:
(Z1) Objects which could sometimes have a spatial location do not,

and cannot, encode properties;
(Z2) For any condition on properties, some object that could never
have a spatial location encodes exactly those properties which satisfy
the condition.
Some object is the round square, for, by (Z2), among objects which could
never have a spatial location is an object which encodes roundness and
squareness. The noun phrase, ‘the round square’, unambiguously denotes
such a necessarily non-spatial object. Other noun phrases of the same kind
include those which denote numbers, sets, Platonic forms, and so on.
There are, however, many noun phrases which are ambiguous. They allow
an interpretation under which they denote an object that is necessarily
non-spatial, and also allow an interpretation under which they denote an
object that is possibly spatial and possibly non-spatial. The phrase, ‘the
golden mountain’, is an example. The golden mountain in one sense is an
object which is necessarily non-spatial and which encodes goldenness and
mountainhood. The golden mountain in the other sense is an object which
actually is non-spatial but could be spatial. When we say that the golden
mountain in the second sense is golden, it means that necessarily if the
golden mountain is spatial, it is golden. Since, by (Z1), such an object
cannot encode properties, all predications in the preceding sentence have

Takashi Yagisawa
to be understood as exemplification. Similarly with Julilus Caesar’s

entirely new finger satisfying (a) and (b).
Zalta endorses the claim that some objects are non-actual possible objects,
so he appears to side with possibilists. But he defines a non-actual possible
object as an object which could have a spatial location but does not (Zalta
1988: 67). So the claim means for Zalta that some objects could have a
spatial location but do not. This is compatible with actualism, provided
that all such objects are actual in the sense of actually existing (Linsky &
Zalta 1994, also Williamson 1998, 2002, 2013; it is noteworthy that
Timothy Williamson independently argues for what he calls necessitism,
which says [in a nutshell] that every possible object is a necessary object).
If we understand Zalta’s theory this way, we have the following actualist
picture: all objects are actual and existing, some objects are necessarily
non-spatial, and other objects are possibly spatial and possibly non-spatial.
(For an alternative interpretation of Zalta’s formal theory, according to
which some objects do not exist, see Zalta 1983: 50–52, 1988: 102–04,
Linsky & Zalta 1996: note 8.) Among the latter type of objects are those
which are actually spatial but possibly not, like you and me, and those
which are possibly spatial but actually not, like the golden mountain in the
appropriate sense. The distinction between the golden mountain in this
(exemplification) sense and the golden mountain in the other (encoding)
sense is key to overcoming some objections (Linsky & Zalta 1996). See
Bennett 2006 for the claim that the Linsky-Zalta view is not actualist, and
Nelson & Zalta 2009 for a response. Hayaki 2006 critiques both Linsky-
Zalta and Williamson.
If we confine our attention to necessarily non-spatial objects, a definition

of a possible object which corresponds to Parsons’ definition is easily
available to Zalta: a possible (necessarily non-spatial) object is a
(necessarily non-spatial) object such that some object could exemplify
exactly the properties it encodes. In this sense, some object which encodes

Possible Objects
goldenness and mountainhood, among other properties, is a possible

object but the object which encodes squareness and roundness is not.
Julilus Caesar’s entirely new finger satisfying (a) and (b) can be treated in
the same way as the golden mountain. Complications similar to those
which arise for Parsons’ theory do not arise for Zalta’s theory, for all
properties are equally subject to encoding, including those properties
Parsons regards as extra-nuclear. For a comparison of the two-kinds-of-
property approach and the two-kinds-of-predication approach, see
Rapaport 1985.
4. Unicorns
If anything is a non-actual possible object, a unicorn is. Or so it appears.
But Kripke vigorously argues against such a view in the 1980 version of
Kripke 1972: 24, 156–58. His argument starts with the assumption that the
unicorn is (intended to be) an animal species if anything. This excludes the
possibility that a horse with a horn artificially attached to its forehead is a
unicorn. Kripke assumes obviously that there are actually no unicorns and
that unicorns are purely mythical creatures. Also assumed is the absence in
the relevant myth of any specification of the genetic structure,
evolutionary history, or other potentially defining essential features of the
unicorn. (Possession of a horn is not a defining essential feature of the
unicorn any more than having tawny stripes is a defining feature of the
tiger.) The myth describes the unicorn only in stereotypical terms: looking
like a horse, having a horn protruding from its forehead, etc. Suppose that
there are objects with all such stereotypical features of the unicorn. This
seems perfectly possible and Kripke accepts such a possibility. But he
rejects its sufficiency for establishing the possibility of unicorns. Suppose
that among the objects with the stereotypical unicorn features, some have
a genetic makeup, an evolutionary history, or some other potentially
defining essential unicorn characteristic which is radically different from

Takashi Yagisawa
the corresponding characteristic had by the others with the same

stereotypical unicorn features. Which ones among those with the
stereotypical unicorn features would then be real unicorns and which ones
fool’s unicorns (à la fool’s gold)? There is no fact of the matter. Given that
the unicorn is an animal species, not everything that looks and behaves
like a unicorn is guaranteed to be a unicorn. To be a unicorn, an object has
to possess the defining essential characteristics of the unicorn. But there
are no defining characteristics of the unicorn; the myth does not specify
them, and the universe does not instantiate them. This surprising argument
has convinced many philosophers of the impossibility of unicorns, but
others have raised doubt by arguing that the notion of a biological kind,
such as a species, is far more malleable than Kripke assumes (Dupré
1993).
The line of argument Kripke uses, if successful, is applicable to all non-

actual natural kinds and their analogs (except for natural-kind analogs of
Kaplan’s automobile or Salmon’s Noman). It is unclear that it or
something like it is successfully applicable to individuals like Vulcan, but
if it is, then we must say that such individuals are impossible objects.
Some theorists liken Vulcan to fictional objects, as we will see in the next
section, and some theorists argue that fictional objects are impossible
objects (Kaplan 1973, 1980 version of Kripke 1972: 157–58, Fine 1984:
126–28, Yagisawa 2010: 271–77). If Vulcan is an impossible object, the
problem of uniquely specifying Vulcan, as opposed to Nacluv, becomes
less urgent, for it is not evident that we should be able to specify an
impossible object uniquely and non-trivially.
5. Fictional Objects
Let us shift our attention from mythological creatures to fictional objects.
Fictional objects include fictional characters but not all fictional objects
are fictional characters. Sherlock Holmes is a fictional object and a

Possible Objects
fictional character. His liver is a fictional object but not a fictional

character. It may be tempting to think that fictional objects are non-actual
possible objects, even though it is obvious that not all non-actual possible
objects are fictional objects.
There are two main problems with the claim that fictional objects are
possible objects. One is the problem of impossible fictional objects. Some
fictional objects are ascribed incompatible properties in their home fiction
by their original author (usually inadvertently). This seems to be sufficient
for them to have those properties according to their home fiction, for what
the author says in the fiction (inadvertently or not) seems to hold the
highest authority on truth in that fiction. On the assumption that a fictional
object has a given property if it has that property according to its home
fiction, those fictional objects are impossible objects, for no possible
object has incompatible properties. The other problem is the failure of
uniqueness. It may be viewed as the problem of meeting the Quinean
demand for clear identity conditions. Holmes is a particular fictional
object. So if we are to identify Holmes with a possible object, we should
identify Holmes with a particular possible object. But there are many
particular possible objects that are equally suited for the identification with
Holmes. One of them has n-many hairs, whereas another has (n+1)-many
hairs. No fictional story about a particular fictional object written or told
by a human being is detailed enough to exclude all possible objects but
one to be identified with that fictional object, unless it is a fiction about an
actual object or a non-actual possible object analogous to Kaplan’s
automobile or Salmon’s Noman.
Strangely enough, there is also a problem with the claim that fictional
objects are non-actual objects. That is, there is some plausible
consideration in support of the claim that fictional objects are actual
objects. We make various assertions about fictional objects outside the
stories in which they occur and some of them are true: for example, that

Takashi Yagisawa
Sherlock Holmes is admired by many readers of the Holmes stories. The

simplest and most systematic explanation appears to be to postulate
Holmes as an actual object possessing the properties such true assertions
ascribe to him. Fictional objects may then be said to be theoretical objects
of literary criticism as much as electrons are theoretical objects of physics.
This type of view enjoys surprisingly wide acceptance. (Searle 1974, van
Inwagen 1977, 1983, Fine 1982, Salmon 1998, Thomasson 1999). The
theorists in this camp, except van Inwagen (van Inwagen 2003: 153–55),
also think that fictional objects are brought into existence by their authors
as actual objects. Even if this type of view is to be followed, it must still
be denied that Holmes is actually a detective, for if we enumerate all
individuals who are actually detectives, Holmes will not be among them.
By the same token, Holmes is not actually a resident of Baker Street or
even a human being. Though actual, Holmes is actually hardly any of
those things Conan Doyle’s stories describe him as being. Holmes must
not be a concrete object at all but instead an abstract object which has the
property of being a detective according to Doyle’s stories, the property of
being a resident of Baker Street according to Doyle’s stories, and so on.
Meinongian theories overcome the problems of impossibility and non-

uniqueness in a straightforward way. According to Parsons’ theory, a
fictional object x which originates in a certain story is the object that has
exactly the nuclear properties F such that according to the story, Fx
(Parsons 1980: 49–60, 228–23). A fictional object to which the story
ascribes incompatible properties is simply an impossible object, but such
an object is harmless because it does not exist. As for the problem of non-
uniqueness, Sherlock Holmes is not identified as a complete object.
Instead Holmes is said to be the object having just the nuclear properties
Holmes has according to the stories. There is no number n such that
Holmes has exactly n-many hairs according to the stories. So Parsons’
Holmes does not have n-many hairs, for any n. It is an incomplete object.

Possible Objects
Zalta offers a similar picture of fictional objects which is subsumed under

his general theory of encoding. According to him, a fictional object x
which originates in a certain story is the object that encodes exactly the
properties F such that according to the story, Fx (Zalta 1988: 123–29).
Zalta’s treatment of the problem of impossibility is similar to Parsons’. A
fictional object to which the story ascribes incompatible properties is an
object which encodes those properties, among others. Such an object is
harmless because it does not exemplify the incompatible properties.
Zalta’s solution to the problem of non-uniqueness is equally similar to
Parsons’. Sherlock Holmes, for Zalta, is simply an incomplete object
which does not encode the property of having exactly n-many hairs, for
any n.
Though not meant to be a fictional object, Vulcan may be given the same
treatment as explicitly fictional objects. According to Parsons, the word
‘Vulcan’ is ambiguous. In one sense, it is the name of a fictional object
which originates in a false astronomical story. In the other sense, it does
not refer to anything. Zalta does not recognize Parsons’ second sense and
simply regards ‘Vulcan’ as the name of a fictional object.
For another Meinongian approach to fictional objects, see Castañeda 1979.

Charles Crittenden offers a view in a Meinongian spirit but with a later-
Wittgensteinian twist (Crittenden 1991). Like Parsons, Crittenden
maintains that some objects do not exist and that fictional objects are such
objects. Following later Wittgenstein, however, he sees no need to go
beyond describing the “language game” we play in our fictional discourse
and dismisses all metaphysical theorizing. Robert Howell criticizes
Parsons’ theory, among others, and recommends an approach which
construes fictional objects as non-actual objects in fictional worlds, where
fictional worlds include not just possible but impossible worlds (Howell
1979). Nicholas Wolterstorff argues for the view that fictional objects are
kinds (Wolterstorff 1980). For criticism of this view, see Walton 1983. Van

Takashi Yagisawa
Inwagen 2003 contains useful compact discussions of some Meinongian

and non-Meinongian theories of fictional objects.
Gregory Currie denies that fictional names like ‘Sherlock Holmes’ are
proper names or even singular terms (Currie 1990). He claims that
sentences of fiction in which ‘Sherlock Holmes’ occurs should be regarded
as jointly forming a long conjunction in which every occurrence of
‘Sherlock Holmes’ is replaced with a variable bound by an initial
existential quantifier in the way suggested by Frank Ramsey (Ramsey
1931).
Kendall Walton urges that we should take seriously the element of make-
believe, or pretense, inherent in the telling of a fictional story by the author
and the listening to it by the audience (Walton 1990, also Evans 1982:
353–68, Kripke 2013). According to this pretense theory, the pretense
involved in the language game of fictional discourse shields the whole
language game from a separate language game aimed at non-fictional
reality, and it is in the latter language game that we seek theories of
objects of various kinds as real objects. If this is right, any search for the
real ontological status of fictional objects appears to be misguided. For the
view that the pretense theory is compatible with a theory of fictional
objects as real objects, see Zalta 2000.
6. Quantified Modal Logic

One important theoretical use of non-actual possible objects is to bolster
the most straightforward quantified modal logic (Scott 1970, Parsons
1995). If we add a modal sentential operator meaning “it is possible that”
or “it is necessary that” to classical first-order quantificational logic, along
with appropriate axioms and an appropriate rule of inference catering to
the added operator, the resulting system yields a sentence meaning the
following as a theorem:

Possible Objects
If it is possible that something is F, then something is such that it is

possible that it is F.
The formal logical sentence with this meaning is known as the Barcan
Formula, after Ruth C. Barcan, who published the first systematic
treatment of quantified modal logic, in which she postulated the formula as
an axiom (Barcan 1946), and who has published under the name ‘Ruth
Barcan Marcus’ since 1950. If we read ‘F’ as meaning “non-identical with
every actual object”, the Barcan Formula says that if it is possible that
something is non-identical with every actual object, then something x is
such that it is possible that x is non-identical with every actual object. The
antecedent is plausibly true, for there could have been more objects than
the actual ones. But if so, the consequent is true as well, assuming the
truth of the Barcan Formula. But no actual object is non-identical with
every actual object, for every actual object is identical with itself, an actual
object. Assuming the necessity of identity, if an object y is identical with
an object z, it is not possible that y is non-identical with z. So, no actual
object is such that it is possible that it is non-identical with every actual
object. Therefore, any object x such that it is possible that x is non-
identical with every actual object must be a non-actual possible object.
The converse of the Barcan Formula is also a theorem along with the
Barcan Formula in classical logic augmented with a possibility or
necessity operator, and is as interesting. The Converse Barcan Formula, as
it is known, says the following:
If something is such that it is possible that it is F, then it is possible

that something is F.
The ontology of non-actual possible objects is an integral part of the

possibilist view that quantifiers in quantified modal logic range over all
possible objects, non-actual as well as actual. This possibilist view

Takashi Yagisawa
validates the Converse Barcan Formula. If we read ‘F’ as meaning “does

not exist”, the Converse Barcan Formula says that if something x is such
that it is possible that x does not exist, then it is possible that something
does not exist. The antecedent is plausibly true, for any one of us, actual
people, could have failed to exist. But if so, the consequent is true as well,
assuming the truth of the Converse Barcan Formula. But on actualist
representationism, no possible world contains a representation which says
that something does not exist, for it is contradictory provided that
‘something’ means “some existing thing”. So if the consequent is to be
true on actualist representationism, ‘something’ should not mean “some
existing thing” but rather should mean “some thing, irrespective of
whether it exists”. That is, the existential quantifier in the consequent
needs to have a free range independently of the possibility operator in
whose scope it occurs, which is hard to fathom on actualist
representationism but which the possibilist view allows. The consequent
does not even appear to be threatened with contradiction if we assume the
possibilist view and let the existential quantifier range over all possible
objects, including non-actual ones.
In classical logic, the domain for quantification is assumed to be non-

empty and every individual constant is assumed to refer to something in
the domain. In free logic, neither of these assumptions is made. Thus free
logic appears to be particularly suited to theorizing about non-existent
objects; see Lambert 1991, Jacquette 1996. For a criticism of the free-
logical approach to fictional discourse, see Woods 1974: 68–91.
Interestingly, the Barcan Formula and the Converse Barcan Formula are
not derivable in free logic.
Marcus herself proposes the substitutional reading of quantification to

skirt the need for non-actual possible objects (Marcus 1976), and later
suggests combining it with objectual quantification over actual objects
(Marcus 1985/86).

Possible Objects
Williamson 2013 contains a detailed and useful discussion of the Barcan

Formula and the Converse Barcan Formula.
Bibliography
Adams, R., 1974, “Theories of Actuality”, Noûs, 8: 211–31. Reprinted in
Loux 1979: 190–209.
–––, 1979, “Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity”, Journal of
Philosophy, 76: 5–26.
–––, 1981, “Actualism and Thisness”, Synthese, 49: 3–41.
Armstrong, D., 1989, A Combinatorial Theory of Possibility, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Barcan, R., 1946, “A Functional Calculus of First Order Based on Strict
Implication”, Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11: 1–16. Also see Marcus
for her later publications under the name ‘Ruth Barcan Marcus’.
Bennett, K., 2006, “Proxy Actualism”, Philosophical Studies, 129: 263–
94.
Bigelow, J. & Pargetter, R., 1990, Science and Necessity, Cambridge:
Braun, D., 1993, “Empty Names”, Noûs, 27: 449–69.
–––, 2005, “Empty Names, Fictional Names, Mythical Names”, Noûs, 39:
596–631.
Brock, S., 2004, “The Ubiquitous Problem of Empty Names”, The Journal
of Philosophy, 101: 277–98.
Cameron, R., 2012, “Why Lewis’s Analysis of Modality Succeeds in Its
Reductive Ambitions”, Philosophers’ Imprint, 12(8): 1–21.
Carnap, R., 1947, Meaning and Necessity, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Castañeda, H., 1974, “Thinking and the Structure of the World”,
Philosophia, 4: 4–40.
–––, 1979, “Fiction and Reality: Their Basic Connections”, Poetics, 8: 31–

Takashi Yagisawa
62.
Chandler, H., 1976, “Plantinga and the Contingently Possible”, Analysis,
36: 106–9.
Chalmers, D. & Jackson, F., 2001, “Conceptual Analysis and Reductive
Explanation”, The Philosophical Review, 110: 315–60.
Chisholm, R. (ed.), 1960, Realism and the Background of Phenomenology,
Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Cresswell, M., 1972, “The World is Everything That is the Case”,
Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 50: 1–13. Reprinted in Loux
1979: 129–45.
Crittenden, C., 1991, Unreality: The Metaphysics of Fictional Objects,
Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press.
Cullison, A. & Caplan, B., 2011, “Descriptivism, Scope, and Apparently
Empty Names”, Philosophical Studies, 156 (2): 283–88.
Currie, G., 1990, The Nature of Fiction, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), 1972, Semantics of Natural Language,
Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Divers, J., 2002, Possible Worlds, London and New York: Routledge.
Donnellan, K., 1972, “Proper Names and Identifying Descriptions”, in
Davidson and Harman 1972: 356–79.
Dupré, J., 1993, The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the
Disunity of Science, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Evans, G., 1982, The Varieties of Reference, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Everett, A. & Hofweber, T. (eds.), 2000, Empty Names, Fiction and the
Puzzles of Non-Existence, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
Fara, D. G., 2008 “Relative-Sameness Counterpart Theory”, Review of
Symbolic Logic, 1: 167–89.
–––, 2012, “Possibility Relative to a Sortal”, Oxford Studies in
Metaphysics, 7: 3–40.

Possible Objects
Findlay, J. N., 1963, Meinong’s Theory of Objects and Values, 2nd ed.,
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fine, K., 1979, “First-Order Modal Theories II—Propositions”, Studia
Logica, 39: 159–202.
–––, 1981, “First-Order Modal Theories I—Sets”, Noûs, 15: 117–206.
–––, 1982, “First-Order Modal Theories III—Facts”, Synthese, 53: 43–
122.
–––, 1984, “Critical Review of Parsons’ Nonexistent Objects”,
Philosophical Studies, 45: 95–142.
–––, 1985, “Plantinga on the Reduction of Possibilist Discourse” in J.
Tomberlin & P. van Inwagen (eds.), Alvin Plantinga: A Profile,
Dordrecht: Reidel: 145–86.
–––, 1994, “Essence and Modality”, Philosophical Perspectives, 8: 1–16.
–––, 1995a, “The Logic of Essence”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 24:
241–73.
–––, 1995b, “Senses of Essence”, in W. Sinnott-Armstrong (ed.),
Modality, Morality, and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan
Marcus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 53–73.
–––, 2000, “Semantics for the Logic of Essence”, Journal of Philosophical
Logic, 29: 543–84.
–––, 2003, “The Problem of Possibilia”, in Loux & Zimmerman 2003:
161–79.
–––, 2005, Modality and Tense, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fitch, G. W., 1996, “In Defense of Aristotelian Actualism”, Philosophical
Perspectives, 10: 53–71.
Forrest, P., 1986, “Ways Worlds Could Be”, Australasian Journal of
Grossmann, R., 1974, Meinong, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Hayaki, R., 2003, “Actualism and Higher-Order Worlds”, Philosophical
Studies, 115: 149–78.
–––, 2006, “Contingent Objects and the Barcan Formula”, Erkenntnis, 64:

Takashi Yagisawa
87–95.
Hazen, A., 1976, “Expressive Completeness in Modal Languages”,
Journal of Philosophical Logic, 5: 25–46.
Hintikka, J., 1962, Knowledge and Belief, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Hintikka, J., Moravcsik, J., and Suppes, P. (eds.), 1973, Approaches to
Natural Language, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Howell, R., 1979, “Fictional Objects: How They Are and How They
Aren’t”, Poetics, 8: 129–77.
–––, 1983, Review of Terence Parsons: Nonexistent Objects, Journal of
Jacquette, D., 1996, Meinongian Logic: The Semantics of Existence and
Nonexistence, The Hague: Walter de Gruyter.
Jeffrey, R., 1965, The Logic of Decision, Chicago: McGraw-Hill.
Jubien, M., 1996, “Actualism and Iterated Modalities”, Philosophical
Studies, 84: 109–25.
–––, 2009, Possibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, D., 1973, “Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice”, in Hintikka,
Moravcsik, and Suppes 1973: 490–518.
–––, 1975, “How to Russell a Frege-Church”, Journal of Philosophy, 72:
716–29. Reprinted in Loux 1979: 210–24.
Kripke, S., 1959, “A Completeness Theorem in Modal Logic”, Journal of
Symbolic Logic, 24: 1–15.
–––, 1963a, “Semantic Analysis of Modal Logic”, Zeitschrift für
Mathematische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik, 9: 67–96.
–––, 1963b, “Semantic Considerations on Modal Logic”, Acta
Philosophica Fennica, 16: 83–94. Reprinted in Linsky 1971: 63–72.
–––, 1972, “Naming and Necessity”, in Davidson & Harman 1972: 252–
355. Published as a book with the same title in 1980 with a
substantial preface and seven addenda, from Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Possible Objects
–––, 2013, Reference and Existence: The John Locke Lectures, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lambert, K., 1983, Meinong and the Principle of Independence,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 1991, Philosophical Applications of Free Logic, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lewis, D., 1968, “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic”,
Journal of Philosophy, 65: 113–26. Reprinted with postscripts in
Lewis 1983: 26–46.
–––, 1970, “Anselm and Actuality”, Noûs 4: 175–88. Reprinted with
postscripts in Lewis 1983: 10–25.
–––, 1983, Philosophical Papers, Volume I, New York and Oxford:
–––, 1986, On the Plurality of Worlds, London and New York: Basil
Blackwell.
–––, 1990, “Noneism or Allism?”, Mind, 99: 23–31. Reprinted in Lewis
1999: 152–63.
–––, 1999, Papers in Metaphysics and Epistemology, Cambridge:
Linsky, B. and Zalta, E., 1994, “In Defense of the Simplest Quantified
Modal Logic”, Philosophical Perspectives, 8: 431–58.
–––, 1996, “In Defense of the Contingently Nonconcrete”, Philosophical
Studies, 84: 283–94.
Linsky, L., 1971, Reference and Modality (ed.), London: Oxford
University Press.
Loux, M. (ed.), 1979, The Possible and the Actual, Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
––– & Zimmerman, D. (eds.), 2003, The Oxford Handbook of
Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lycan, W., 1979, “The Trouble with Possible Worlds”, in Loux 1979:
274–316. Reprinted with additional material as chapters 1, 3, and 4 in

Takashi Yagisawa
Lycan 1994.
–––, 1994, Modality and Meaning, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
––– & Shapiro, S., 1986, “Actuality and Essence”, Midwest Studies in
Philosophy 11, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press: 343–77.
Reprinted in part with additional material in Lycan 1994: 95–134.
Mally, E., 1912, Gegenstandstheoretische Grundlagen der Logik und
Logistik, Leipzig: Barth.
Marcus, R., 1961, “Modalities and Intensional Languages”, Synthese, 13:
303–22. Reprinted in Marcus 1993: 3–35, with appendices.
–––, 1976, “Dispensing with Possibilia”, Proceedings and Addresses of
the American Philosophical Association, 49: 39–51.
–––, 1985/86, “Possibilia and Possible Worlds”, Grazer Philosophische
Studien, 25/26: 107–33. Reprinted in Marcus 1993: 189–213.
–––, 1993, Modalities: Philosophical Essays, Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Also see Barcan for her earlier publications under the name
‘Ruth C. Barcan’.
McDaniel, K., 2004, “Modal Realism with Overlap”, Australasian Journal
of Philosophy, 82: 137–52. Reprinted in Lewisian Themes: The
Philosophy of David K. Lewis, F. Jackson and G. Priest (eds.),
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
McMichael, A., 1983, “A Problem for Actualism about Possible Worlds”,
Philosophical Review, 92: 49–66.
Meinong, A., 1904, “Über Gegenstandstheorie”, in Untersuchungen zur
Gegenstandstheorie und1Psychologie, Leipzig: Barth. Translated as
“On the Theory of Objects”, in Chisholm (ed.) 1960: 76–117.
Menzel, C., 1990, “Actualism, Ontological Commitment and Possible
World Semantics”, Synthese, 85: 355–89.
Murray, A. & Wilson, J., 2012, “Relativized Metaphysical Modality”,
Oxford Studies in Metaphysics, 7: 189–226.
Nelson, M. & Zalta, E., 2009, “Bennett and ‘Proxy Actualism’”,
Philosophical Studies, 142: 277–92.

Possible Objects
Oliver, A. & Smiley, T., 2013, “Zilch”, Analysis, 73 (4): 601–13.

Parsons, T., 1980, Nonexistent Objects, New Haven and London: Yale
University Press.
–––, 1983, Review of Richard Routley: Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and
Beyond, Journal of Philosophy, 80: 173–79.
–––, 1995, “Ruth Barcan Marcus and the Barcan Formula”, in Modality,
Morality, and Belief: Essays in Honor of Ruth Barcan Marcus, W.
Sinnott-Armstrong, D. Raffman, and N. Asher (eds.), Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press: 3–11.
Peacocke, C., 1978, “Necessity and Truth Theories”, Journal of
Philosophical Logic, 7: 473–500.
–––, 2002, “Principles for Possibilia”, Noûs, 36: 486–508.
Piccinini, G. & Scott, S., 2010, “Recovering What is Said with Empty
Names”, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 40: 239–73.
Plantinga, A., 1974, The Nature of Necessity, Oxford: Clarendon.
–––, 1987, “Two concepts of Modality: Modal Realism and Modal
Reductionism”, Philosophical Perspectives, 1: 189–231. Reprinted in
Plantinga 2003: 192–228.
–––, 2003, Essays in the Metaphysics of Modality, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Priest, G., 2005, Towards non-Being: The Logic and Metaphysics of
Intentionality, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Expanded second
edition in 2016.
Prior, A. & Fine, K., 1977, Worlds, Times and Selves, Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Quine, W., 1948, “On What There Is”, Review of Metaphysics. Reprinted
in Quine 1953: 1–19.
–––, 1953, From a Logical Point of View, New York: Harper and Row.
–––, 1968, “Ontological Relativity”, Journal of Philosophy, 65: 185–212.
–––, 1976, “Worlds Away”, Journal of Philosophy, 73: 859–63.
Ramsey, F., 1931, “Theories”, in The Foundations of Mathematics and

Takashi Yagisawa
Other Logical Essays, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Rapaport, W., 1978, “Meinongian Theories and a Russellian Paradox”,
Noûs, 12: 153–80.
–––, 1985, “To Be and Not To Be”, Noûs, 19: 255–71.
Rodriguez-Pereyra, G., 2004, “Modal Realism and Metaphysical
Nihilism”, Mind, 113: 683–704.
Roper, A., 1982, “Towards an Eliminative Reduction of Possible Worlds”,
Philosophical Quarterly, 32: 45–59.
Routley, R., 1980, Exploring Meinong’s Jungle and Beyond: An
Investigation of Noneism and the Theory of Items, Departmental
Monograph #3, Philosophy Department, Research School of Social
Sciences, Canberra: Australian National University.
Russell, B., 1905, “On Denoting”, Mind, 14: 479–93.
Salmon, N., 1981, Reference and Essence, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
–––, 1986, “Modal Paradox: Parts and Counterparts, Points and
Counterpoints”, in P. French, T. Uehling, & H. Wettstein (eds.),
Midwest Studies in Philosophy XI: Studies in Essentialism,
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press: 75–120.
–––, 1987, “Existence”, Philosophical Perspectives, vol. 1, Metaphysics,
49–108.
–––, 1989, “The Logic of What Might Have Been”, The Philosophical
Review, 98: 3–34.
–––, 1998, “Nonexistence”, Noûs, 32: 277–319.
Scott, D., 1970, “Advice on Modal Logic”, in Philosophical Problems in
Logic, K. Lambert (ed.), Dordrecht: Reidel: 143–73.
Searle, J., 1974, “The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse”, New
Literary History, 6: 319–32.
Sider, T., 2002, “The Ersatz Pluriverse”, Journal of Philosophy, 99: 279–
315.
Skyrms, B., 1981, “Tractarian Nominalism”, Philosophical Studies, 40:

Possible Objects
199–206.
Stalnaker, R., 1976, “Possible Worlds”, Noûs, 10: 65–75. Reprinted in
Loux 1979: 225–34.
Thomasson, A., 1999, Fiction and Metaphysics Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Vacek, M., 2017, “Extended Modal-Dimensionalism”, Acta Analytica, 32
(1): 13–28.
Van Inwagen, P., 1977, “Creatures of Fiction”, American Philosophical
Quarterly, 14: 299–308.
–––, 1983, “Fiction and Metaphysics”, Philosophy and Literature, 7: 67–
77.
–––, 1986, “Two Concepts of Possible Worlds”, Midwest Studies in
Philosophy, 11: 185–213. Reprinted in van Inwagen 2001: 206–42.
–––, 2001, Ontology, Identity, and Modality, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
–––, 2003, “Existence, Ontological Commitment, and Fictional Entities”,
in Loux and Zimmerman 2003: 131–57.
Varzi, A., 2001, “Parts, Counterparts, and Modal Occurrents”, Travaux de
Logique, 14: 151–71.
Walton, K., 1983, Review of Nicholas Wolterstorff: Works and Worlds of
Art, Journal of Philosophy, 80: 179–93.
–––, 1990, Mimesis as Make Believe, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Williamson, T., 1998, “Bare Possibilia”, Erkenntnis, 48: 257–73.
–––, 2002, “Necessary Existents”, in A. O’Hear (ed.), Logic, Thought and
Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 233–51.
–––, 2013, Modal Logic as Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wolterstorff, N., 1980, Works and Worlds of Art, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Woods, J., 1974, The Logic of Fiction, the Hague: Mouton.
Yagisawa, T., 2002, “Primitive Worlds”, Acta Analytica, 17: 19–37.

Takashi Yagisawa
–––, 2010, Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise, Oxford:

–––, 2017, “S4 to 5D”, Argumenta, 2 (2): 241–61.
Zalta, E., 1983, Abstract objects: An Introduction to Axiomatic
Metaphysics, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
–––, 1988, Intensional Logic and the Metaphysics of Intentionality,
Cambridge, MA: A Bradford Book, the MIT Press.
–––, 2000, “The Road Between Pretense Theory and Abstract Object
Theory”, in Everett and Hofweber 2000: 117–47.
Academic Tools
How to cite this entry.
Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP
Society.
Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology
Project (InPhO).
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links
to its database.
Other Internet Resources

Modal Metaphysics, entry at Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Possible World, brief entry at Encyclopedia Britannica.
David Lewis: Modal Realism, archive of a webpage by Peter J. King.
Related Entries
abstract objects | actualism | essential vs. accidental properties | existence |
fictionalism: modal | God: and other necessary beings | haecceity:
medieval theories of | identity: of indiscernibles | identity: over time |
identity: transworld | impossible worlds | Lewis, David | Lewis, David:

Possible Objects
metaphysics | logic: free | logic: intensional | logic: modal | Meinong,

Alexius | mereology | modality: medieval theories of | modality: varieties
of | names | nonexistent objects | object | possible worlds | rigid designators
| semantics: two-dimensional | substance | temporal parts
Copyright © 2020 by the author

Takashi Yagisawa

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

pdf version of the entry

Edward N. Zalta Uri Nodelman Colin Allen R. Lanier Anderson

Library of Congress Catalog Data

Notice: This PDF version was distributed by request to mem-

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Deep theorizing about possibility requires theorizing about possible

1. What They Are

2.2.1 Nesting Problem

1. What They Are

There is a wide-spread conservative view on objects, which says that any

2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(1) Any object is an actual existing object;

(3) Any object is an existing object, that is, it is either an actual

(4) Any object that is actual is an existing object;

(5) Any object that exists is an actual object.

Summer 2020 Edition 3

We shall first examine possibilism. It is superficially the most

4 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

2.1 Possibilist Realism

Possibilist realism takes non-actual possible objects to be (real, genuine)

Summer 2020 Edition 5

it ‘actuality’—and affirm its inclusion in some other realm. That other

A possible object is simply a part of a maximal spatiotemporally related

6 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

spatiotemporal” instead of “spatiotemporal” but we shall let that pass.) By

2.1.1 Modal Counterpart Theory

On Lewis’s modal counterpart theory, every possible object is confined to

Summer 2020 Edition 7

A significantly different counterpart theory is proposed by Delia Graff

8 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Independently of his counterpart theory, Lewis’s definition of a possible

Summer 2020 Edition 9

a possible object and y is a possible object independent of x, then the

A useful overview of various issues concerning Lewis’s possibilist

10 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Lewis’s is the most developed version of possibilist realism based on

Modal–dimensionalism differs from Lewis’s theory in a number of

Summer 2020 Edition 11

regions at which it exists, a modally persisting object is not part of the

Though free from some difficulties inherent in Lewis’s theoretical

12 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

dimensionalism (Varzi 2001). Unlike modal–dimensionalism, the theory

2.1.3 Specificity Problem

Lewis’s possibilist realism faces the problem of specifying non-actual

Summer 2020 Edition 13

The modal-dimensionalist version of possibilist realism is capable of

14 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Alternatively, one might choose to insist that if anything at any possible

Summer 2020 Edition 15

proper names of non-actual possible objects may not be as readily

2.2 Actualist Representationism

According to actualist representationism, which is also known under

16 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

automatically be taken to be a serious challenge to actualist

It is important to note that according to most versions of actualist

In actualist representationism, existence is conceptually prior to actual

Non-actual possible existence is defined as existence at some possible

Summer 2020 Edition 17

supposition. There is no room for non-actual possible objects in this

Let us examine how actualist representationists handle apparent modal

2.2.1 Nesting Problem

The second type of apparent modal truth, however, is more challenging.

18 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy