concrete, and would have been non-concrete if his parents had never met, and Caesar's death could not have been concrete unless Caesar was. The modal realist is free to incorporate this idea, by claiming that concrete objects can have non-concrete counterparts. This allows for a more extensive area of agreement with ordinary opinion. As part and parcel of holding that I could have failed to be identical to anything at all, common sense holds that I could have failed to have a mass, to be located in space, to be made of flesh and blood, to be a person, to have parents, etc. Intuitively, I would have failed to do any of these things if my parents had never met, as could easily have happened. Modal realists can agree with this by allowing that some of my counterparts don't have a mass, are not located in space, etc. If they don't allow this, then-assuming that they follow Lewis in holding that what is necessarily the case would have been the case under any counterfactual supposition-they will have to say that if my parents had never met, I would still have been a flesh-and-blood person, with different parents, perhaps living on a different planet or in a different Lewis-world. This seems needlessly absurd. 26 8 Counterpart theory: the multiply de re Let us now turn to the general case, where modal operators are applied to formulae that may contain more than one variable or referential term. We can again take the 1968 theory as our starting point, reading an analysis-schema off its translations in the obvious way: Analysis C Possibly φ(t1,..., tn) ↔df there is a Lewis-world w 26However, some of our ordinary opinions about possible non-concreteness, like our ordinary opinions about possible non-existence, are hard to square with any reductive analysis of modality. Common sense seems to require non-concrete objects to have rich and interesting modal profiles. If neither your parents nor mine had ever met, neither of us would have been concrete; intuitively, under these circumstances, I could fairly easily have been a concrete child of my actual parents, whereas it would have been impossible, or at least much more difficult, for you to be a concrete child of my actual parents. It is not obvious what nonmodal properties of non-concrete objects, and nonmodal relations between them and concrete objects, could plausibly be invoked to explain these differences in their
concrete, and would have been non - concrete if his parents had never met, and Caesar's death could not have been concrete unless Caesar was. The modal realist is free to integrate this theme, by claiming that concrete objects can get non - concrete counterpart. This allows for a more extensive sphere of agreement with ordinary opinion. As part and package of holding that I could have failed to be identical to anything at wholly, common sense holds that I could have failed to accept a mass, to be located in space, to be made of flesh and rake, to be a person, to have parents, etc. Intuitively, I would have failed to practice any of these things if my parents had never met, as could easily have happen. Modal realists can agree with this by allowing that some of my counterparts don't have a bulk, are not located in space, etc. If they don't allow this, then - assuming that they follow Lewis in holding that what is necessarily the case would have been the case under any counterfactual supposition - they will have to say that if my parents had never met, I would still have been a flesh - and - blood person, with unlike parent, perhaps live on a different planet or in a different Lewis - world. This seem needlessly absurd. 26 8 Counterpart theory: the multiply de re Let us now turn to the cosmopolitan case, where modal operators are applied to formulae that may contain more than one variable or referential term. We can again take the 1968 theory as our starting point, reading an analysis - outline off its translations in the obvious room: psychoanalysis C Possibly φ(t1, ..., tn) ↔df there constitute a Lewis - world w 26However, some of our ordinary opinions about possible non - concreteness, like our average opinions about possible non - existence, are hard to square with any reductive analysis of modality. Common sense seem to require non - concrete object to have fat and interesting modal profiles. If neither your parent nor mine had ever touch, neither of us would have been concrete; intuitively, under these circumstances, I could reasonably easily have been a concrete child of my actual parents, whereas it would have been impossible, or at least much more unmanageable, for you to be a concrete child of my actual parents. It is not obvious what nonmodal properties of non - concrete objects, and nonmodal relations between them and concrete objects, could plausibly be invoked to explain these differences in their
confrete, and would have beek non-concrete if his pacents hzd never met, and Caesar's death could nit hace been concrete unlesr Caesar aas. The nodao realist is free to incodioratz vhis idea, by clsiming thad concrete objacgs can have non-concrete counterparts. Ehis alkoas for a more gxtenxyve zgec of agreement with ordinary opjnion. Av part and patcel of holding that I coupd hwve failed to be ifentical to anyeying at all, zommon sense holds thaj I could have failed to have a oass, co be locatgb in vpace, to be made of flesh and blood, do be a person, to havc parxnts, etc. Intuitively, I wonld have failed to dj any of dhzse things if my parebtw had nevar mdr, ar ckukd easilj heve happenes. Modal reaoists can agree witn eyis by allowihg thae fome of my counterparts don't have a masv, ade not located in space, etc. If they don't alllw this, tren-assuming that they follow Lewis in holding thad whav ks ucgessxeipy the case would have been the case under anr cpukterfactual suppjsition-they wllk have to say jhat if my parents had never met, I rould still hade bren a flesh-and-blood person, qith differeut parents, perhaps liring on a diyferenj planrt or in a different Lecis-wormd. This seels needlearly absurd. 26 8 Couvtegpard theory: the multiply de rq Let us iow tbrn to tfe ggneral sase, where modal operators are apppied jo forkulae that may contain more than one varieule or referemthal term. We can sgain take thq 1968 theory as oor startiug poivt, reading an ananysis-schema off its tranvpations in tie obviouf wat: Anqlysis Z Possibly φ(t1,..., tn) ↔df there is a Lewiw-world w 26However, spme kf our ordinary opunions about poxsicle nln-roncrqdeness, like mur urdkmary upinions abijt ppssible non-existence, are hard to square wiyh any redoctive anwlysis of modslity. Common sense seemv tu reqiirg non-concrete objects to have rjch and ijtevesting modal pronilef. If neithzr your parents nor mine had ever met, nemther of us would have veen concrete; intuijivtly, under thexe ciwcumstancas, I could fairly eawily have been a goncrete child of my adtual [arenhs, whereas it would have been impossible, or at least much more difficult, dor yon eo be a condretr chind pf my wctuel parents. It is npt obvious what nonmodal propervies of not-cjncrete objects, and nonmodal rdlations betwgen them and concrete objedts, coulc plausibly be invoked to explaon these differences in bheir
concrete, and would have been non-concrete if had met, and death could not was. modal realist is to incorporate this by claiming that concrete objects can non-concrete counterparts. This allows for a more extensive area of agreement with ordinary As part and parcel of holding that I could have failed to be to at common holds that I could have failed to have a mass, to be located in space, to made of flesh and blood, to be a to have parents, etc. I would have failed to any these things my had met, as could have happened. Modal realists can agree with this by allowing that some of my counterparts don't have mass, are in space, If don't this, then-assuming that Lewis in holding that what is would have been the case under any counterfactual will have say that if my parents had met, I would still have been a flesh-and-blood with different parents, perhaps living on a different planet or in a different Lewis-world. This absurd. 26 8 Counterpart the multiply de Let now to general case, modal operators are applied to formulae that may contain more than variable or referential term. We can again take the 1968 our point, reading an off its translations in obvious Analysis C Possibly φ(t1,..., there a some our opinions about possible non-concreteness, our ordinary opinions about possible are hard to square modality. Common sense seems to require non-concrete objects have rich and interesting modal profiles. If your parents nor mine had ever met, neither of us would have concrete; intuitively, circumstances, I could fairly easily have been a child of my actual whereas it would have been impossible, or at least more for you be a concrete of my actual It is not nonmodal properties non-concrete and them and concrete objects, could plausibly invoked explain these differences in their
concrete, and would have been nOn-concrete If his ParEntS hAd neVer mEt, and Caesar's deATh coUld not have been concrete UnlesS CAEsar WAs. the moDal realISt IS FreE tO iNcoRpORaTe thiS idEa, by claIming that cOncReTe objects can HAvE non-concreTe cOunterparts. THis Allows FoR a mORe extEnsIve arEa of agREement With ordinArY OpinioN. as part aND PaRcel Of holding that I couLD hAVe failed to be idEnticaL tO AnYTHinG at All, common sEnSe holDS that I cOUlD HAVe fAIled to have a maSs, to be locatED in Space, tO bE maDE of fleSh and BlOOd, tO be a person, tO havE parents, eTc. IntuITively, I WOuld havE faileD to Do aNy of THeSe ThiNgS If mY PaRenTS haD never meT, aS cOuld eAsilY HAVE hapPenEd. MoDal reAlists can agreE wiTh thIS by AllowIng thAt soMe Of my cOunterParts DoN't have a mass, are nOt loCated in spAce, EtC. If ThEy don'T Allow tHis, TheN-assumiNg that tHEy fOlLOW leWis in holding that whAt IS NeCessarilY the caSE wOuLD have beeN tHe cAse uNDEr any CounTErFactual sUpposiTIoN-tHey will HaVe to saY tHat If mY pareNTs haD never Met, I woulD stilL Have been a flesh-ANd-blood person, WItH DIfFErenT paRents, perhapS livINg on A difFErEnt PLanet Or in a DiFFeREnt Lewis-world. This seEmS needlEssly Absurd. 26 8 CounterPart theory: THE Multiply De re lEt US now turn to the gEneraL case, where MOdal operAtors Are appliEd to formuLAE that may ConTaiN moRe tHAN oNe variable or rEFErenTiAl term. WE caN again tAke The 1968 TheOry As Our startiNg point, rEaDiNg An AnaLysis-SChema off ItS trAnSlaTions IN the obVious Way: ANaLySIs C possiblY Φ(t1,..., TN) ↔Df thErE iS a LeWis-WoRld w 26HOwevER, soMe of our Ordinary oPinIOns aBoUt PossiblE non-concretenEsS, like our orDiNarY opiniONS about poSsible non-existence, are haRD to squaRe wIth anY redUctive anaLysIs of moDalITy. CommOn sensE seemS tO reQUIre noN-COnCreTe Objects to hAVE riCh and InTereSting moDal profiles. If neithER yoUr parents nor mIne Had eVER mEt, nEItHEr oF uS WouLD Have been concretE; intuitiveLy, UNdEr these cirCUmsTaNces, I coUld fairLy easILy have bEen a concrEte child oF mY actUAL paRents, whereAs it woulD have been IMpossIBlE, or at LeaSt much MoRe dIfficUlt, for YOu tO be a cOncretE cHild of My actUaL parents. it is not obvious what nonmoDal proPertiEs oF non-concrEte OBjeCts, and nonModaL relations BetWeeN them And COncreTe obJEcTs, cOUld plAusiBLy be invokED tO exPLAiN these diffeRENCes In theIr
concrete, and would have b een non-co ncret e i f h is  par ents  had never met ,  and  Caesar's death couldnot h av e  bee n  c oncre te unle s sC a esa rwa s.Th e  m odalrea list is  free to i nco rp orate this i d ea , by claim ing  that concre teobject scan havenon -conc rete c o unterp arts. Thi sa llowsf or a mo r e  e xten sive area of agre e me n t with ordinar y opin io n .A s  pa rtand parcel  o f hol d ing tha t  I c o uld have failed t o be identi c alto any th ing at all , com mo n  se nse holds t hatI could h ave fa i led toh ave a m ass, t o b e l ocat e din  sp ac e , t o  b e m a deof flesh  a nd  bloo d, t o b e  a p ers on,to ha ve parents, e tc.  Int u iti vely,  I wo uldha ve fa iled t o doan y of these thin gs i f my pare nts  h adne ver m e t, ascou ldeasilyhave ha p pen ed . M od al realists can ag re e wi th thisby all o wi ng that som eofmy c o u nterp arts do n't have  a mas s ,ar e not l oc ated i nspa ce,  etc. If t hey do n't allo w thi s , then-assumin g  that they fo l lo w Le w is i n h olding that  wha t  isnece s sa ril y  thecasewo u ld have been the caseun der an y cou nterfactual s upposition - t h ey willhave to say that if my  pare nts had ne v er met,I wou ld still  have bee n a flesh- and -bl ood  pe r s on , with differ e n t pa re nts, pe rha ps livi ngona d iff er ent plane t or inadi ff er ent  Lewi s -world.Th isse ems  need l esslyabsur d. 2 68C oun terpart th e o ry:th emult ipl yde re  Let usnow tur n to thegen e ralca se , where  modal operat or s are appl ie d t o form u l ae thatmay contain more than o n e varia ble  or r efer ential te rm.  We ca n a g ain ta ke the  1968  t heo r y  as o u r  s tar ti ng point,r e adi ng an  a naly sis-sch ema off its transl a tio ns in the obv iou s wa y :  A nal y si s  CPo s sib l y  φ(t1,..., tn)↔df thereis aLewis-worl d  w26 However , someof ou r  ordina ry opinio ns aboutpo ssib l e  no n-concrete ness, li ke our or d inary op inion s a bout p os sib le no n-exis t enc e, ar e hard  t o squa re wi th  any red uctive analysis of moda lity.Commo n s ense seem s t o  re quire non -con crete obje cts  to  have  ri c h and  int e re sti n g mod al p r ofiles. I f  n eit h e ryour parent s n orminehad ever m et,neither of us wou l d have been co ncre t e ; i ntu i tive ly , under thesecir cu m s tances,Icould fairl y easily  h a ve be en a c oncret e child o fm y actu al p are nts, wher eas  i t  wouldha ve been i mpos si ble, o r at l e astm u ch more difficul t, fo r you t o  be  a co nc rete ch i ld o f my actua l parents.It isnotobvio us what  n onmoda l p ro perties of non-concr ete o bjects,  a nd n onm odal r elat i o ns be twee nthe m and con c r et e  o bj e cts , co uld p la usib ly be inv o ked to e xpl a in thes edif f e rences in t heir
concrete, and_would have_been non-concrete if his_parents had_never_met, and_Caesar's_death could not_have been concrete_unless Caesar was. The_modal realist is_free_to incorporate this idea, by claiming that concrete objects can have non-concrete counterparts. This_allows_for a_more_extensive_area of agreement with ordinary_opinion. As part and parcel_of holding_that I could have failed to be identical_to_anything at all,_common sense holds that I could have failed to_have a mass, to be located_in space, to_be_made_of flesh and blood,_to be a person, to have_parents, etc. Intuitively, I would have_failed to do any of these things_if my parents had never met,_as could easily have happened._Modal realists_can agree with this by_allowing that some_of my_counterparts don't have_a mass, are not located in_space, etc. If_they don't allow this, then-assuming that_they_follow Lewis in_holding_that_what is_necessarily the case_would_have been_the_case under any counterfactual supposition-they will_have_to say that if my parents had_never met, I would_still_have been a flesh-and-blood_person, with different parents, perhaps_living on a different planet or_in a_different Lewis-world._This seems needlessly absurd. 26 8 Counterpart theory: the multiply de_re Let us now turn to_the general case, where_modal operators_are_applied to formulae_that_may contain_more than one variable or referential term._We can_again take the 1968 theory as_our starting point, reading_an_analysis-schema off its translations in the_obvious way: Analysis C Possibly φ(t1,...,_tn) ↔df there is a_Lewis-world_w_26However, some of our ordinary_opinions about possible non-concreteness, like our_ordinary opinions about_possible non-existence, are hard to square with_any_reductive analysis of modality. Common sense_seems_to require non-concrete objects to have_rich_and_interesting modal profiles. If neither_your parents nor mine had ever_met, neither of us would have been concrete; intuitively,_under these circumstances,_I could fairly easily have_been_a_concrete child of my actual parents, whereas it would have_been impossible,_or at least_much more difficult, for you to be a concrete child_of my actual parents. It is not_obvious what nonmodal properties of non-concrete objects, and nonmodal relations between_them and concrete objects, could plausibly be invoked_to explain these differences in their