Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyTransworld IdentityFirst published Tue Jul 25, 2006; substantive revision Thu Aug 8, 2013

The notion of transworld identity—‘identity across possible worlds’—is the notion that the same objectexists in more than one possible world (with the actual world treated as one of the possible worlds). Ittherefore has its home in a ‘possible-worlds’ framework for analysing, or at least paraphrasing, statementsabout what is possible or necessary.

The subject of transworld identity has been highly contentious, even among philosophers who accept thelegitimacy of talk of possible worlds. Opinions range from the view that the notion of an identity thatholds between objects in distinct possible worlds is so problematic as to be unacceptable, to the view thatthe notion is utterly innocuous, and no more problematic than the uncontroversial claim that individualscould have existed with somewhat different properties. Matters are complicated by the fact that animportant rival to ‘transworld identity’ has been proposed: David Lewis's counterpart theory, whichreplaces the claim that an individual exists in more than one possible world with the claim that althougheach individual exists in one world only, it has counterparts in other worlds, where the counterpart relation(based on similarity) does not have the logic of identity. Thus much discussion in this area has concernedthe comparative merits of the transworld identity and counterpart-theoretic accounts as interpretations,within a possible-worlds framework, of statements of what is possible and necessary for particularindividuals.

1. What is transworld identity?1.1 Why transworld identity?1.2 Transworld identity and conceptions of possible worlds

2. Transworld identity and Leibniz's Law3. Is ‘the problem of transworld identity’ a pseudo-problem?

3.1 Against the epistemological assumption3.2 Against the ‘security of reference’ assumption3.3 Against the ‘intelligibility’ assumption

4. Individual essences and bare identities4.1 Chisholm's Paradox and bare identities4.2 Forbes on individual essences and bare identities4.3 Transworld identity and conditions for identity over time4.4 Responses to the problems4.5 Haecceities and haecceitism

5. Transworld identity and the transitivity of identity5.1 Chandler's transitivity argument5.2 The ‘Four Worlds Paradox’

6. Concluding remarks6.1 Transworld identity and counterpart theory6.2 Lewis on transworld identity and ‘existence according to a world’

BibliographyAcademic ToolsOther Internet ResourcesRelated Entries

1. What is transworld identity?

1.1 Why transworld identity?

Suppose that, in accordance with the possible-worlds framework for characterizing modal statements(statements about what is possible or necessary, about what might or could have been the case, what couldnot have been otherwise, and so on), we treat the general statement that there might have been purplecows as equivalent to the statement that there is some possible world in which there are purple cows, andthe general statement that there could not have been round squares (i.e., that it is necessary that there arenone) as equivalent to the statement that there is no possible world in which there are round squares.

How are we to extend this framework to statements about what is possible and necessary for particularindividuals—what are known as de re modal statements (‘de re’ meaning ‘about a thing’)—for example,that Clover, a particular (actually existing) four-legged cow, could not have been a giraffe, or that shecould have had just three legs? A natural extension of the framework is to treat the first statement asequivalent to the claim that there is no possible world in which Clover is a giraffe, and the second asequivalent to the claim that there is some possible world in which Clover is three-legged. But this lastclaim appears to imply that there is some possible world in which Clover exists and has three legs—fromwhich it seems inescapably to follow that one and the same individual—Clover—exists in some merelypossible world as well as in the actual world: that there is an identity between Clover and some individualin another possible world. Similarly, it appears that the de re modal statement ‘Bertrand Russell mighthave been a playwright instead of a philosopher’ will come out as ‘There is some possible world in whichBertrand Russell (exists and) is a playwright and not a philosopher’; again, this appears to involve acommitment to an identity between an individual who exists in the actual world (Russell) and anindividual who exists in a non-actual possible world.

To recapitulate: the natural extension of the possible-worlds interpretation to de re modal statementsinvolves a commitment to the view that some individuals exist in more than one possible world, and thusto what is known as ‘identity across possible worlds’, or (for short) ‘transworld identity’. (It isquestionable whether the shorthand is really apt. One would expect a ‘transworld’ identity to mean anidentity that holds across (and hence within) one world, not an identity that holds between objects indistinct worlds. (As David Lewis (1986) has pointed out, our own Trans World Airlines is anintercontinental, not an interplanetary, carrier.) Nevertheless, the term ‘transworld identity’ is far too wellestablished for it to be sensible to try to introduce an alternative, although ‘interworld identity’ or even‘transmodal identity’ would in some ways be more appropriate.) But is this commitment acceptable?

1.2 Transworld identity and conceptions of possible worlds

To say that there is a transworld identity between A and B is to say that there is some possible world w1,and some distinct possible world w2, such that A exists in w1, and B exists in w2, and A is identical with B.(Remember that we are treating the actual world as one of the possible worlds.) In other words, to say thatthere is a transworld identity is to say that the same object exists in distinct possible worlds, or (moresimply) that some object exists in more than one possible world.

But what does it mean to say that an individual exists in a merely possible world? And—even if we acceptthat paraphrases of modal statements in terms of possible worlds are in general acceptable—does it evenmake sense to say that actual individuals (like you and me and the table in front of me and my neighbour'scat) exist in possible worlds other than the actual world? To know what a claim of transworld identityamounts to, and whether such claims are acceptable, we need to know what a possible world is, and whatit is for an individual to exist in one.

Among those who take possible worlds seriously (that is, those who think that there are possible worlds,on some appropriate interpretation of the notion), there is a variety of conceptions of their nature. On one

account, that of David Lewis, a non-actual possible world is something like another universe, isolated inspace and time from our own, but containing objects that are just as real as the entities of our world;including its own real concrete objects such as people, tables, cows, trees, and rivers (but also, perhaps,real concrete unicorns, hobbits, and centaurs). According to Lewis, there is no objective difference instatus between what we call ‘the actual world’ and what we call ‘merely possible worlds’. We call ourworld ‘actual’ simply because we are in it; the inhabitants of another world may, with equal right, calltheir world ‘actual’. In other words, according to Lewis, ‘actual’ in ‘the actual world’ is an indexical term(like ‘here’ or ‘now’), not an indicator of a special ontological status (Lewis 1973, 84–91; Lewis 1986,Ch. 1).

On Lewis's ‘extreme realist’ account of possible worlds, it looks as if, for Clover to exist in anotherpossible world as well as the actual world would be for her to be a part of such a world: Clover wouldsomehow have to exist as a (concrete) part of two worlds, ‘in the same way that a shared hand might be acommon part of two Siamese twins’ (Lewis 1986, 198). But this is problematic. Clover actually has fourlegs, but could have had three legs. Should we infer that Clover is a part of some world at which she hasonly three legs? If so, then how many legs does Clover have: four (since she actually has four legs), orseven (since she has four in our world and three in the alternative world)? Worse still, we appear to beascribing contradictory properties to Clover: she has four legs, and yet has no more than three.

Those who believe in the ‘extreme realist’ notion of possible worlds may respond by thinking of Clover ashaving a four-legged part in our world, and a three-legged part at some other world. This is Yagisawa's(2010) view (cf. Lewis 1986, 210–20). He thinks of concrete entities—everyday things such as cats, treesand macbooks—as extended across possible worlds (as well as across times and places), in virtue ofhaving stages (or parts) which exist at those worlds (and times and places). Ordinary entities thuscomprise spatial, temporal and modal stages, all of which are equally real. Metaphysically, modal stages(and the worlds at which they exist) are on a par with temporal and spatial stages (and the times andplaces at which they exist). (This view is the modal analogue of the ‘perdurance’ account of identity overtime, according to which an object persists through time by having ‘temporal parts’ that are located atdifferent times.) Thus, when we say that Clover has four legs in our world but only three in some otherworld, we are saying that she has a four-legged modal stage and a distinct three-legged modal stage.Clover herself is neither four-legged nor three-legged. (However, there is a sense in which Clover herself—the entity comprising many modal stages—has awfully many legs, even though she actually has onlyfour.)

Another option for the ‘extreme realist’ about possible worlds is to hold that Clover is four-legged relativeto our world, but three-legged relative to some other world. In general, qualities we would normally thinkof as monadic properties are in fact relations to worlds. McDaniel (2004) defends a view along theselines. A feature of this account is that one and the same entity may exist according to many worlds, forthat entity may bear the exists-at relation to more than one world. Accordingly, the view is sometimescalled genuine modal realism with overlap (McDaniel 2004). This view, transposed to the temporal case,is precisely what the endurantist says: objects do not have temporal parts; each object is wholly present ateach time.

Lewis rejects both of these options. He rejects the overlap view because of what he calls ‘the problem ofaccidental intrinsics’. On the overlap view, having four legs is a relation to a world, and hence not one ofClover's intrinsic properties. In fact, any aspect of a particular that changes across worlds turns out to benon-intrinsic to that particular. As a consequence, every particular has all its intrinsic propertiesessentially, which Lewis thinks is unacceptable (1986, 199–209).

Lewis himself combines his brand of realism about possible worlds with a denial of transworld identities.According to Lewis, instead of saying that Bertrand Russell (in whole or in part) inhabits more than oneworld, we should say that he inhabits one world only (ours), but has counterparts in other worlds. And it isthe existence of counterparts of Russell who go in for playwriting rather than philosophy that makes ittrue that Russell might have been a playwright instead of a philosopher (Lewis 1973, 39–43; 1968; 1986,

Ch. 4).

However, Lewis's version of realism is by no means the only conception of possible worlds. According toan influential set of rival accounts, possible worlds, although real entities, are not concrete ‘otheruniverses’, as in Lewis's theory, but abstract objects such as (maximal) possible states of affairs or ‘waysthe world might have been’. (See Plantinga 1974; Stalnaker 1976; van Inwagen 1985; Divers 2002; Melia2003; Stalnaker 1995; also the separate entry on Possible Worlds. A state of affairs S is ‘maximal’ just incase, for any state of affairs S*, either it is impossible for both S and S* to obtain, or it is impossible for Sto obtain without S*: the point of the restriction to the maximal is just that a possible world should be apossible state of affairs that is, in a relevant sense, complete.)

On the face of it, to treat possible worlds as abstract entities may seem only to make the problem oftransworld identity worse. If it is hard to believe that I (or a table or a cat) could be part of anotherLewisian possible world, it seems yet harder to believe that a concrete entity like me (or the table or cat)could be part of an abstract entity. However, those who think that possible worlds are abstract entitiestypically do not take the existence in a merely possible world of a concrete actual individual to involvethat entity's being literally a part of such an abstract thing. Rather, such a theorist will propose a differentinterpretation of ‘existence in’ such a world. For example, according to Plantinga's (1973, 1974) versionof this account, to say that Bertrand Russell exists in some possible world in which he is a playwright isjust to say that there is a (maximal) possible state of affairs such that, had it obtained (i.e., had it beenactual), Bertrand Russell would (still) have existed, but would have been a playwright. On this(deflationary) account of existence in a possible world, it appears that the difficulties that accompany theidea that Bertrand Russell leads a double life as an element of another concrete universe as well as ourown (or the idea that he is partially present in many such universes) are entirely avoided. On Plantinga'saccount, to claim that an actual object exists in another possible world with somewhat different propertiesamounts to nothing more risqué than the claim that the object could have had somewhat differentproperties: something that few will deny. (Note that according to this account, if the actual world is to beone of the possible worlds, then the actual world must be an abstract entity. So, for example, if a merelypossible world is ‘a way the world might have been’, the actual world will be ‘the way the world is’; if amerely possible world is a maximal possible state of affairs that is not instantiated, then the actual worldwill be a maximal possible state of affairs that is instantiated. It follows that we must distinguish theactual world qua abstract entity from ‘the actual world’ in the sense of the collection of spatiotemporallylinked entities including you and me and our surroundings that constitutes ‘the universe’ or ‘the cosmos’.The sense in which I exist in this concrete universe (by being part of it) must be different from the sensein which I exist in the abstract state of affairs that is in fact instantiated (cf. Stalnaker 1976; van Inwagen1985, note 3; Kripke 1980, 19–20).)

The discussion so far may suggest that whether the notion of transworld identity (that an object exists inmore than one world) is problematic depends solely on whether one adopts an account of possible worldsas concrete entities such as Lewis's (in which case it is) or an account of possible worlds as abstractentities such as Plantinga's (in which case it is not). However, it is arguable that matters are not as simpleas this might suggest, for a variety of reasons (to be discussed in Sections 3–5 below).

2. Transworld identity and Leibniz's LawThere may seem to be an obvious objection to the employment of transworld identity to interpret orparaphrase statements such as ‘Bertrand Russell might have been a playwright’. A fundamental principleabout (numerical) identity is Leibniz's Law: the principle that if A is identical with B, then any property ofA is a property of B, and vice versa. In other words, according to Leibniz's Law, identity requires thesharing of all properties; thus any difference between the properties of A and B is sufficient to show that Aand B are numerically distinct. (The principle here referred to as ‘Leibniz's Law’ is also known as theIndiscernibility of Identicals. It must be distinguished from another (more controversial) Leibnizianprinciple, the Identity of Indiscernibles, which says that if A and B share all their properties then A is

identical with B.) However, the whole point of asserting a transworld identity is to represent the fact thatan individual could have had somewhat different properties from its actual properties. Yet does not (forexample) the claim that a philosopher in the actual world is identical with a non-philosopher in someother possible world conflict with Leibniz's Law?

It is generally agreed that this objection can be answered, and the appearance of conflict with Leibniz'sLaw eliminated. We can note that the objection, if sound, would apparently prove too much, since aparallel objection would imply that there can be no such thing as genuine (numerical) identity throughchange of properties over time. But it is generally accepted that no correct interpretation of Leibniz's Lawshould rule this out. For example, Bertrand Russell was thrice married when he received the Nobel Prizefor Literature; the one-year-old Bertrand Russell was, of course, unmarried; does Leibniz's Law force usto deny the identity of the prize-winning adult with the infant, on the grounds that they differ in theirproperties? No, for it seems that the appearance of conflict with Leibniz's Law can be dispelled, mostobviously by saying that the infant and the adult share the properties of being married in 1950 and beingunmarried in 1873, but alternatively by the proposal that the correct interpretation of Leibniz's Law is thatthe identity of A and B requires that there be no time such that A and B have different properties at thattime (cf. Loux 1979, 42–43; also Chisholm 1967). However, it seems that exactly similar moves areavailable in the modal case to accommodate ‘change’ of properties across possible worlds. Either we mayclaim that the actual Bertrand Russell and the playwright in some possible world (say, w2) are alike inpossessing the properties of being a philosopher in the actual world and being a non-philosopher in w2, orwe may argue that Leibniz's Law, properly interpreted, asserts that the identity of A and B requires thatthere be no time, and no possible world, such that A and B have different properties at that time andworld. The moral appears to be that transworld identity claims (combined with the view that some of anindividual's properties could have been different) need no more be threatened by Leibniz's Law than is theview that there can be identity over time combined with change of properties (Loux 1979, 42–43).

It should be mentioned, however, that David Lewis has argued that the reconciliation of identity throughchange over time with Leibniz's Law suggested above is oversimplified, and gives rise to a ‘problem oftemporary intrinsics’ that can be solved only by treating a persisting thing that changes over time ascomposed of temporal parts that do not change their intrinsic properties. (See Lewis 1986, 202–4, and fordiscussion and further references, Hawley 2001; Sider 2001; Lowe 2002; Haslanger 2003.) In addition, itis partly because Lewis regards the analogous account of transworld identity in terms of modal parts as anunacceptable solution to an analogous ‘problem of accidental intrinsics’ that Lewis rejects transworldidentity in favour of counterpart theory (Lewis 1986, 199–220; cf. Section 1.2 above).

3. Is ‘the problem of transworld identity’ a pseudo-problem?In the discussion of transworld identity in the 1960s and 1970s (when the issue came to prominence as aresult of developments in modal logic), it was debated whether the notion of transworld identity isgenuinely problematic, or whether, on the contrary, the alleged ‘problem of transworld identity’ is merelya pseudo-problem. (See Loux 1979, Introduction, Section III; Plantinga 1973 and 1974, Ch. 6; Kripke1980 (cf. Kripke 1972); Kaplan 1967/1979; Kaplan 1975; Chisholm 1967; for further discussion see, forexample, Divers 2002, Ch. 16; Hughes 2004, Ch. 3; van Inwagen 1985; Lewis 1986, Ch. 4.)

It is difficult to pin down the alleged problem that is supposed to be at the heart of this dispute. Inparticular, although the main proponents of the view that the alleged problem is a pseudo-problem clearlyintended to attack (inter alia) Lewis's version of modal realism, they did not attempt to rebut the thesis(discussed in Section 1.2 above) that if one is a Lewisian realist about possible worlds, then one shouldfind transworld identity problematic. Matters are complicated by the fact that proponents of the view thatthe alleged problem of transworld identity is a pseudo-problem were to some extent responding tohypothetical arguments, rather than arguments presented in print by opponents (see Plantinga 1974, 93).However, one central issue was whether the claim that an individual exists in more than one possibleworld (and hence that there are cases of transworld identity) needs to be backed by the provision of

criteria of transworld identity, and, if so, why.

The term ‘criterion of identity’ is ambiguous. In an epistemological sense, a criterion of identity is a wayof telling whether an identity statement is true, or a way of recognizing whether an individual A isidentical with an individual B. However, the notion of a criterion of identity also has a metaphysicalinterpretation, according to which it is a set of (non-trivial) necessary and sufficient conditions for thetruth of an identity statement. Although a criterion of identity in the second (metaphysical) sense mightsupply us with a criterion of identity in the first (epistemological) sense, it seems that something could bea criterion of identity in the second sense even if it is unsuited to play the role of a criterion of identity inthe first sense.

The most influential arguments against the view that there is a genuine problem of transworld identity (or‘problem of transworld identification’, to use Kripke's preferred terminology) are probably thosepresented by Plantinga (1973, 1974) and Kripke (1980). Plantinga and Kripke appear to have, as theirtarget, an alleged problem of transworld identity that rests on one of three assumptions. The firstassumption is that we must possess criteria of transworld identity in order to ascertain, on the basis oftheir properties in other possible worlds, the identities of (perhaps radically disguised) individuals in thoseworlds. The second assumption is that we must possess criteria of transworld identity if our references toindividuals in other possible worlds are not to miss their mark. The third assumption is that we mustpossess criteria of transworld identity in order to understand transworld identity claims. Anyone whomakes one of these assumptions is likely to think that there is a problem of transworld identity—aproblem concerning our entitlement to make claims that imply that an individual exists in more than onepossible world. For it does not seem that we possess criteria of transworld identity that could fulfil any ofthese three roles. However, Plantinga and Kripke provide reasons for thinking that none of these threeassumptions survives scrutiny. If so, and if these assumptions exhaust the grounds for supposing that thereis a problem of transworld identity, the alleged problem may be dismissed as a pseudo-problem.

The three assumptions may be illustrated, using our example of Bertrand Russell, as follows:

(1) The ‘epistemological’ assumption: We must possess a criterion of transworld identity for Russell inorder to be able to tell, on the basis of knowledge of the properties that an individual has in some otherpossible world, whether that individual is identical with Russell.

(2) The ‘security of reference’ assumption: We must possess a criterion of transworld identity for Russellin order to know that, when we say such things as ‘There is a possible world in which Russell is aplaywright’, we are talking about Russell rather than someone else.

(3) The ‘intelligibility’ assumption: We must possess a criterion of transworld identity for Russell in orderto understand the claim that there is a possible world in which Russell is a playwright.

3.1 Against the epistemological assumption

The epistemological assumption appears to imply that the point of our having a criterion of transworldidentity for Russell would be that we could then employ the criterion in order to ascertain whichindividual in a possible world is Russell; if, on the other hand, we do not possess such a criterion, we shallbe unable to pick him out or identify him in other possible worlds (Plantinga 1973; 1974, Ch. 6; Kripke1980, 42–53; cf. Loux 1979, Introduction; Kaplan 1967/1979). However, this suggestion, as stated, isvulnerable to the charge that it is the product of confusion. For how could we use a criterion of identity inthe way envisaged? We must dismiss as fanciful the idea that if we had a criterion of transworld identityfor Russell, we could use it to tell, by empirical inspection of the properties of individuals in otherpossible worlds (perhaps using a powerful telescope (Kripke 1980, 44) or ‘Jules Verne-o-scope’ (Kaplan1967/1979, 93; Plantinga 1974, 94)), which, if any, of those individuals is Russell. For no one (includingan extreme realist like Lewis) thinks that our epistemological access to other possible worlds is of thiskind. (According to Lewis, other possible worlds are causally isolated from our own, and hence beyond

the reach of our telescopes or any other perceptual devices.) But once we face up to the fact that acriterion of transworld identity (if we had one) could have no such empirical use, the argument based onthe epistemological assumption appears to collapse. It is tempting to suggest that the argument is theproduct of the (perhaps surreptitious) influence of a misleading picture of our epistemological access toother possible worlds. As Kripke writes (using President Nixon as his example):

One thinks, in this [mistaken] picture, of a possible world as if it were like a foreign country. One looksupon it as an observer. Maybe Nixon has moved to the other country and maybe he hasn't, but one is givenonly qualities. One can observe all his qualities, but, of course, one doesn't observe that someone isNixon. One observes that something has red hair (or green or yellow) but not whether something isNixon. So we had better have a way of telling in terms of properties when we run into the same thing aswe saw before; we had better have a way of telling, when we come across one of these other possibleworlds, who was Nixon. (1980, 43)

(It is possible, though, that in this passage Kripke's principal target is not a mistaken conception of ourepistemological access to other possible worlds, but what he takes to be a mistaken (‘foreign country’)conception of their nature: a conception that (when divorced from the fanciful epistemology) would beentirely appropriate for a Lewisian realist about worlds.)

3.2 Against the ‘security of reference’ assumption

It might be suggested that the point of a criterion of transworld identity is that its possession would enableme to tell which individual I am referring to when I say (for example) ‘There is a possible world in whichRussell is a playwright’. Suppose that I am asked: ‘How do you know that the individual you are talkingabout—this playwright in another possible world—is Bertrand Russell rather than, say, G. E. Moore, orMarlene Dietrich, or perhaps someone who is also a playwright in the actual world, such as TennesseeWilliams or George Bernard Shaw? Don't you need to be able to supply a criterion of transworld identityin order to secure your reference to Russell?’ (Cf. Plantinga 1974, 94–97; Kripke 1980, 44–47.) It seemsclear that the right answer to this question is ‘no’. As Kripke has insisted, it seems spurious to suggest thatthe question how we know which individual we are referring to when we make such a claim can beanswered only by invoking a criterion of transworld identity. For it seems that we can simply stipulatethat the individual in question is Bertrand Russell (Kripke 1980, 44).

Similarly, perhaps, if I say that there is some past time at which George Bush is a baby, and am asked‘How do you know that it's the infant George Bush that you are talking about, rather than some otherinfant?’, an apparently adequate reply is that I am stipulating that the past state of affairs I am talkingabout is one that concerns Bush (and not some other individual). It seems that I can adequately answer theparallel question in the modal case by saying that I am stipulating that, when I say that there is somepossible world in which Russell is a playwright, the relevant individual in the possible world (if there isone) is Russell (and not some other potential or actual playwright).

3.3 Against the ‘intelligibility’ assumption

A third job for a criterion of transworld identity might be this: in order to understand the claim that thereis some possible world in which Russell is a playwright, perhaps we must be able to give an informativeanswer to the question ‘What would it take for a playwright in another possible world to be identical withRussell?’ Again, however, it can be argued that this demand is illegitimate, at least if what is demanded isthat one be able to specify a set of properties whose possession, in another possible world, by anindividual in that world, is non-trivially necessary and sufficient for being Russell (cf. Plantinga 1973;Plantinga 1974, 94–97; van Inwagen 1985).

For one thing, we may point to the fact that it is doubtful that, in order to understand the claim that thereis some past time at which George Bush is a baby, we have to be able to answer the question ‘What does ittake for an infant at some past time to be identical with Bush?’ in any informative way. Secondly, it may

be proposed that in order to understand the claim that there is some possible world in which Russell is aplaywright, we can rely on our prior understanding of the claim that Russell might have been a playwright(cf. Kripke 1980, 48, note 15; van Inwagen 1985).

However, even if all three of these assumptions can be dismissed as bad, or at least inadequate, reasonsfor supposing that transworld identity requires criteria of transworld identity (and hence for supposing thatthere is a problem of transworld identity), it does not follow that there are no good reasons for thissupposition. In particular, even if the three assumptions are discredited, a fourth claim may survive:

(4) There must be a criterion of transworld identity for Russell (in the sense of a set of properties whosepossession by an object in any possible world is non-trivially necessary and sufficient for being Russell) ifthe claim that there is a possible world in which Russell is a playwright is to be true. (Such a set ofproperties would be what is called a non-trivial individual essence of Russell, where an individual essenceof an individual A is a property, or set of properties, whose possession by an individual in any possibleworld is both necessary and sufficient for identity with A.)

That this possibility is left open by the arguments so far considered is suggested by at least two points.The first concerns the analogy drawn above between transworld identity and identity through time. Evenif we can understand the claim that there is some past time at which George Bush is a baby without beingable to specify informative (non-trivial) necessary and sufficient conditions for the identity of the adultGeorge Bush with some previously existing infant, it does not follow that there are no such necessary andsufficient conditions. And many philosophers have supposed that there are such conditions for personalidentity over time. Secondly, the fact that one may be able to ensure, by stipulation, that one is talkingabout a possible world in which Bertrand Russell (and not someone else) is a playwright (if there is such aworld) does not imply that, when making this stipulation, one is not implicitly stipulating that thisindividual satisfies, in that world, conditions non-trivially necessary and sufficient for being Russell, evenif one is not in a position to say what these conditions are.

This second point is an extension of the observation that, if (as most philosophers believe) BertrandRussell has some essential properties (properties that he has in all possible worlds in which he exists), tostipulate that one is talking about a possible world in which Russell is a playwright is, at least implicitly,to stipulate that the possible world is one in which someone with Russell's essential properties is aplaywright. For example, according to Kripke's ‘necessity of origin’ thesis, human beings have theirparents essentially (Kripke 1980). If this is correct, then, when we say ‘There is a possible world in whichRussell is a playwright’, it seems that, if our stipulation is to be coherent, we must be at least implicitlystipulating that the possible world is one in which someone with Russell's actual parents is a playwright,even if the identity of Russell's parents is unknown to us, and even though we are (obviously) in noposition to conduct an empirical investigation into the ancestry, in the possible world, of the individualswho exist there.

Thus, it seems, even if Kripke is right in insisting that we need not be able to specify non-trivial necessaryand sufficient conditions for being Russell in another possible world if we are legitimately to claim thatthere are possible worlds in which he is a playwright, it might nevertheless be the case that there are suchnecessary and sufficient conditions (cf. Kripke 1980, 46–47 and 18, note 17; Lewis 1986, 222).

But what positive reasons are there for holding that transworld identities require non-trivial necessary andsufficient conditions (non-trivial individual essences), if arguments that are based on the epistemological,security of reference, and intelligibility assumptions are abandoned?

4. Individual essences and bare identitiesThe principal argument for this view—that transworld identities require non-trivial individual essences—is that such essences are needed in order to avoid what have been called ‘bare identities’ across possibleworlds. And some regard bare identities as too high a price to pay for the characterization of de re modal

statements in terms of transworld identity. If they are right, and if (as many philosophers believe) there areno plausible candidates for non-trivial individual essences (at least for such things as people, cats, trees,and tables) there is, indeed, a serious problem about transworld identity. (The expression ‘bare identities’is taken from Forbes 1985. The notion, as I use it here, is approximately the same as the notion of‘primitive thisness’ employed by Adams (1979), although Adams's notion is that of an identity that doesnot supervene on qualitative facts, rather than an identity that does not supervene on any other facts at all.)

Suppose that we combine transworld identity with the claim (without which the introduction of transworldidentity seems pointless) that a transworld identity can hold between A in w1 and B in w2 even though theproperties that B has in w2 are somewhat different from the properties that A has in w1 (or, to put it moresimply, suppose that we combine the claim that there are transworld identities with the claim that not allof a thing's properties are essential to it). Then, it can be argued, unless there are non-trivial individualessences, we are in danger of having to admit the existence of possible worlds that differ from one anotheronly in the identities of some of the individuals that they contain.

4.1 Chisholm's Paradox and bare identities

One such argument, adapted from Chisholm 1967, goes as follows. Taking Adam and Noah in the actualworld as our examples (and pretending, for the sake of the example, that the biblical characters are realpeople), then, on the plausible assumption that not all of their properties are essential to them, it seemsthat there is a possible world in which Adam is a little more like the actual Noah than he actually was, andNoah a little more like the actual Adam than he actually was. But if there is such a world, then it seemsthat there should be a further world in which Adam is yet more like the actual Noah, and Noah yet morelike the actual Adam. Proceeding in this way, it looks as if we may arrive ultimately at a possible worldthat is exactly like the actual world, except that Adam and Noah have ‘switched roles’ (plus any furtherdifferences that follow logically from this, such as the fact that in the ‘role-switching’ world Eve is theconsort of a man who plays the Adam role, but is in fact Noah). But if this can happen with Adam andNoah, then it seems that it could happen with any two actual individuals. For example, it looks as if therewill be a possible world that is a duplicate of the actual world except for the fact that in this world youplay the role that I play in the actual world, and I play the role that you play in the actual world (cf.Chisholm 1967, p. 83 in 1979). But this may seem intolerable. Is it really the case that I could have had allyour actual properties (except for identity with you) while you had all of mine (except for identity withme)?

However, if one thinks that such conclusions are intolerable, how are they to be avoided? The obviousanswer is that what is needed, in the Adam-Noah case, is that the roles that Adam and Noah play in theactual world include some properties that are essential to their bearers' being Adam and Noahrespectively: that Adam and Noah differ non-trivially in their essential properties as well as in theiraccidental properties: more precisely, that Adam has some essential property that Noah essentially lacks,or vice versa. For if ‘the Adam role’ includes some property that Noah essentially lacks, then, of course,there is no possible world in which Noah has that property, in which case the Adam role (in all its detail)is not a possible role for Noah, and the danger of a role-switching world such as the one described aboveis avoided.

The supposition that Adam and Noah differ in their essential properties in this way, although sufficient toblock the generation of this example of a role-switching world, does not by itself imply that each of Adamand Noah has an individual essence: a set of essential properties whose possession is (not only necessarybut also) sufficient for being Adam or Noah. Suppose that Adam has, as one of his essential properties,living in the Garden of Eden, whereas Noah essentially lacks this property. This will block the possibilityof Noah's playing the Adam role, although it does not, by itself, imply that nothing other than Adam couldplay that role. However, when we reflect on the potential generality of the argument, it appears that, if weare to block all cases of role-switching concerning actual individuals, we must suppose that every actualindividual has some essential property (or set of essential properties) that every other actual individual

essentially lacks. For example, to block all cases of role-switching concerning Adam and other actualindividuals, there must be some component of ‘the Adam role’ that is not only essential to being Adam,but also cannot be played, in any possible world, by you, or me, or any actual individual other than Adam.

Even if we suppose that all actual individuals are distinguished from one another by such ‘distinctive’essential properties, this still does not, strictly speaking, imply that they have individual essences. Forexample, it does not rule out the existence of a possible world that is exactly like the actual world exceptthat, in this possible world, the Adam role is played, not by Adam, but by some merely possible individual(distinct from all actual individuals). However, if we find intolerable the idea that there are such possibleworlds—worlds that, like the role-switching world, differ from the actual world only in the identities ofsome of the individuals that they contain—then, it seems, we must suppose that individuals like Adam(and Noah and you and me) have (non-trivial) individual essences, where an individual essence of Adamis (by definition) some property (or set of properties) that is both essential to being Adam and also suchthat it is not possessed, in any possible world, by any individual other than Adam—i.e., an essentialproperty (or set of properties) that guarantees that its possessor is Adam and no one else.

Chisholm (1967) arrives at his role-switching world by a series of steps; thus his argument appears to relyon the combination of the transitivity of identity (across possible worlds) together with the assumptionthat a succession of small changes can add up to a big change. And ‘Chisholm's Paradox’ (as it is called)is sometimes regarded as relying crucially on these assumptions, suggesting that it has the form of asorites paradox (the type of paradox that generates, from apparently impeccable assumptions, absurdconclusions such as the conclusion that a man with a million hairs on his head is bald). (See, for example,Forbes 1985, Ch. 7.)

However, there are versions of the role-switching argument that do not rely on the cumulative effect of aseries of small changes. For example, suppose we assume that Adam and Noah do not differ from oneanother in their essential properties; in other words, that all the differences between them are accidental(i.e., contingent) differences. It seems immediately to follow that any way that Adam could have been is away that Noah could have been, and vice versa. But one way that Adam could have been is the way thatAdam actually is, and one way that Noah could have been is the way that Noah actually is. So (if Adamand Noah do not differ in their essential properties) it seems that there is a possible world in which Adamplays the Noah role, and a possible world in which Noah plays the Adam role. But there is no obviousreason why a world in which Adam plays the Noah role and a world in which Noah plays the Adam roleshouldn't be the very same world. And in that case there is a possible world in which Adam and Noahhave swapped their roles. This argument for the generation of a role-switching world does not rely on aseries of small changes: all that it requires is the assumption that there is no essential difference betweenNoah and Adam: or, to put it another way, that any essential property of Noah is also an essential propertyof Adam, and vice versa. (See Mackie 2006, Ch. 2; also Adams 1979.)

4.2 Forbes on individual essences and bare identities

Another type of argument for the conclusion that unless things have non-trivial individual essences therewill be ‘bare’ transworld identities: identities that do not supervene on (are not grounded in) other facts, ispresented by Graeme Forbes. (Strictly speaking, Forbes is concerned to avoid identities that are notgrounded in what he calls ‘intrinsic’ properties.) A sketch of a type of argument used by Forbes is this.(What follows is based on Forbes 1985, Ch. 6; see also Mackie 2006, Ch. 3.) Suppose (as is surelyplausible) that an actually existing oak tree could have been different in some respects from the way that itis; suppose also that, even if it has some essential properties (perhaps it is essentially an oak tree, forexample), it has no non-trivial individual essence consisting in some set of its intrinsic properties. Thenthere is the danger that there may be three possible worlds (call them ‘w2’, ‘w3’, and ‘w4’), where in w2there is an oak tree that is identical with the original tree (w2 representing one way in which the tree couldhave been different), and in w3 there is an oak tree that is identical with the original tree (w3 representinganother way in which the tree could have been different), and in w4 there are two oak trees, one of which

is an intrinsic duplicate of the tree as it is in w2, and the other an intrinsic duplicate of the tree as it is inw3. If all of w2, w3, and w4 are possible, then, given that at least one of the trees in w4 is not identical withthe original tree (since two things cannot be identical with one thing) there are instances of transworldidentity (and transworld distinctness) concerning a tree in one possible world and a tree in another that arenot grounded in (do not supervene on) the intrinsic features that those trees possess in those possibleworlds. For example, suppose that, of the two trees in w4, the intrinsic duplicate of the w2 tree is notidentical with the original tree. Then, obviously, the distinctness (non-identity) between this w4 tree andthe tree in w2 is not grounded in the intrinsic features that the trees have in w2 and w4—and nor is theidentity between the tree in w2 and the original tree grounded in the intrinsic features that the tree has inw2 and in the actual world.

Forbes argues that, in order to avoid this (and similar) consequences, we should suppose that (contrary tothe second assumption used in setting up the ‘reduplication argument’ sketched above) the oak tree doeshave a non-trivial individual essence consisting in some of its intrinsic properties, and his favouredcandidate for its essence is one that includes the tree's coming from the particular acorn from which itactually originated. If the tree does have such an ‘intrinsic’ individual essence, then, if w2 and w3 are bothpossible, each of them must contain a tree that has (in that world) intrinsic properties that are guaranteedto be sufficient for identity with the original tree, in which case (as a matter of logic) there can be no worldsuch as w4 that contains intrinsic duplicates of both of them. (See Forbes 1985, Ch. 6, and, for discussion,Mackie 1987; Mackie 2006; Robertson 1998; Yablo 1988; Chihara 1998; Della Rocca 1996; furtherdiscussions by Forbes include his 1986, 1994, and 2002.)

Finally, it is obvious that the structure of Forbes's argument has nothing to do with the fact that the chosenexample is a tree. Forbes's ‘reduplication argument’ (as we may call it) therefore appears to pose a generalproblem for the characterization of de re modal statements about individuals in terms of transworldidentity: either we must admit that their transworld identities can be ‘bare’, or we must find non-trivialindividual essences, based on their intrinsic properties, that can ground their identities across possibleworlds.

4.3 Transworld identity and conditions for identity over time

So far it has been assumed that (non-trivial) necessary and sufficient conditions for transworld identitywith a given object would involve the possession, by that object, of an individual essence: a set ofproperties that it carries with it in every possible world in which it exists. But one might wonder why weshould make this assumption. Those who believe that there are (non-trivial) necessary and sufficientconditions for identity over time need not, and almost universally do not, believe that these conditionsconsist in the possession, by an object, of some ‘omnitemporal core’ (to use a phrase suggested by HaroldNoonan) that it has at every time in its existence. So why should things be different in the modal case?

The obvious answer seems to be this. In the case of identity over time, we can appeal to relations (otherthan mere similarity) between the states of an individual at different times in its existence. For example, itlooks as if we can say that the adult Russell is identical with the infant Russell in virtue of the existence ofcertain spatiotemporal and causal continuities between his infant state in 1873 and his adult state in (say)1950 that are characteristic of the continued existence of a human being. But no such relations ofcontinuity are available to ground identities across possible worlds (cf. Quine 1976).

However, on reflection, it may seem that this is too swift. If we suppose that any possible history forRussell is a possible spatiotemporal and causal extension of the state that he was actually in at some timein his existence, then perhaps we may appeal to the same continuities that ground his identity over time inthe actual world in order to ground his identity across possible worlds (cf. Brody 1980, 114–15; 121). Forexample, perhaps to say that Russell could have been a playwright is to say that there was some time inhis actual existence at which he could have become a playwright. If so, then perhaps we can hold that for

a playwright in a possible world to be identical with Russell is for that playwright to have, in that world, alife that is, at some early stage, exactly the same as Russell's actual life at some early stage, but whichdevelops from that point, in the spatiotemporally and causally continuous fashion that is characteristic ofthe continued existence of a human being, into the career of a playwright rather than that of a philosopher.However, although such a conception may seem initially attractive, it runs into difficulties if it is intendedto provide conditions that are genuinely both necessary and sufficient for the identity of individuals acrosspossible worlds. These difficulties include the fact that it seems too much to demand that Russell haveexactly the same early history (or origin) as his actual early history (or origin) in every possible world inwhich he exists. Yet if Russell's early history could have been different in certain respects, we face thequestion: ‘In virtue of what is an individual in another possible world with a slightly different early historyfrom Russell's actual early history identical with Russell?’—a question of precisely the type that theprovision of necessary and sufficient conditions for transworld identity was intended to answer. (Fordiscussion of this ‘branching’ conception of possibilities, and its implications for questions of transworldidentity and essential properties, see Brody 1980, Ch. 5; Mackie 1998; Mackie 2006, Chs 6–7; Coburn1986, Section VI; McGinn 1976; Mackie 1974; Prior 1960.)

4.4 Responses to the problems

The fact that, in the absence of non-trivial individual essences, a transworld identity characterization of dere modal statements appears to generate bare identities (via arguments such as Chisholm's Paradox orForbes's reduplication argument) may produce a variety of reactions.

In his 1967 paper, the moral that Chisholm drew from his argument was scepticism about transworldidentity, based partly on scepticism about whether the non-trivial individual essences that would block thegeneration of role-switching worlds are available. Others would go further, and conclude that such puzzlesprovide not only a reason for rejecting transworld identity, but also a reason for adopting counterparttheory. (Note, though, that Lewis's reasons for adopting counterpart theory appear to be largelyindependent of such puzzles (cf. Lewis 1986, Ch. 4).) A third reaction is to accept bare identities—or, atleast, to accept that individuals (including actual individuals) may have qualitative duplicates in otherpossible worlds, and that transworld identities may involve what have been called ‘haecceitistic’differences. (See Adams 1979; Mackie 2006, Chs 2–3; also Lewis 1986, Ch. 4, Section 4.) A fourthreaction, that of Forbes, is to propose a mixed solution: he holds that for some individuals (includinghuman beings and trees) suitable candidates for non-trivial individual essences can be found (by appeal todistinctive features of their origins), although for others (including most artefacts) it may be that nosuitable candidates are available, in which case counterpart theory should be adopted for these cases (seeForbes 1985, Chs 6–7).

It is perhaps significant, though, that no theorist appears to have argued that a ‘non-trivial individualessence’ solution can be applied to all the relevant cases. In other words, the consensus appears to be thatthe price of interpreting all de re modal claims in terms of transworld identity (as opposed to counterparttheory) is the acceptance of bare identities across possible worlds.

Finally, it can be noted that the problems concerning transworld identity discussed here arise only becauseit is assumed that not all of an individual's properties are essential to it (and hence that, if it exists in morethan one possible world, it has different properties in different worlds). If, instead, one were to hold thatall of an individual's properties are essential properties—and hence, for example, that Bertrand Russellcould not have existed with properties in any way different from his actual ones—then no such problemswould arise. Moreover, this suggestion, implausible though it may be, is of some historical interest. For,according to a standard interpretation of the views of Gottfried Leibniz, the philosopher who is the fatherof theories of possible worlds, Leibniz's theory of ‘complete individual notions’ commits him to the thesisthat an individual such as Bertrand Russell does have all his properties essentially (cf. Leibniz, Discourseon Metaphysics (1687), Sections 8 and 13; printed in Leibniz 1973 and elsewhere). According to the‘hyper-essentialist’ view to which Leibniz appears to be committed, any individual, in any possible world,whose properties in that world differ from the actual properties of Russell is not, strictly speaking,

identical with Russell. However, it also seems clear that this does not represent a way of saving atransworld identity interpretation of de re modality. On the contrary: if there is no possible world in whichRussell exists with properties different from his actual properties, then it is plausible to conclude that thereis no possible world, other than the actual world, in which he exists at all. For unless possible worlds canbe exact duplicates (something that Leibniz himself would deny), any merely possible world must differfrom the actual world in some respect. If so, then, as a consequence, the properties of any individual inanother possible world must differ in some respect from the actual properties of Russell (even if thedifference is only a difference in relational properties), in which case, if all Russell's properties areessential to him, that individual is not Russell. (Leibniz's views may, however, be seen as a partialanticipation of counterpart theory, which attempts to save the truth of the claim that Russell could havebeen different in some respects (thus denying ‘hyper-essentialism’) while preserving the metaphysicalthesis that no individual who is, strictly speaking, identical with Russell exists in any other possible world(cf. Kripke 1980, 45, note 13).)

4.5 Haecceities and haecceitism

The view that an individual's transworld identity is ‘bare’ is sometimes described as the view that itsidentity consists in its possession of a ‘haecceity’ or ‘thisness’: an unanalysable non-qualitative propertythat is necessary and sufficient for its being the individual that it is. (The term ‘individual essence’ issometimes used to denote such a haecceity. It should be noted that according to the terminology used inthis article, although a haecceity would be an individual essence, it would not be a non-trivial individualessence.) However, it is not obvious that the belief in bare identities requires the acceptance ofhaecceities. One can apparently hold that transworld identities may be ‘bare’ without holding that they areconstituted by any properties at all, even unanalysable haecceities (cf. Lewis 1986, 225; Adams 1979, 6–7). Thus we should distinguish what is standardly known as ‘haecceitism’ (roughly, the view that theremay be bare identities across possible worlds in the sense of identities that do not supervene on qualitativeproperties) from the belief in haecceities (the belief that individuals have unanalysable non-qualitativeproperties that constitute their being the individuals that they are). (For more on the use of the term‘haecceitism’ see Lewis 1986, Ch. 4, Section 4; Adams 1979; Kaplan 1975, Section IV. For the history ofthe term ‘haecceity’, see the separate entry on Medieval Theories of Haecceity.)

In addition, it should be noted that to believe in ‘bare’ transworld identities, in the sense under discussionhere, is not to believe in ‘bare particulars’, if to be a bare particular is to be an entity that is devoid of(non-trivial) essential properties. As the arguments discussed in Sections 4.1–4.2 above demonstrate, acommitment to a ‘bare’ (or ‘ungrounded’) difference in the identities of two individuals A and B indifferent possible worlds (two human beings, or two trees, for example) does not imply that thoseindividuals have no non-trivial essential properties. All that it implies is that A and B do not differ in theirnon-trivial essential properties—and hence that, although there may well be non-trivial necessaryconditions for being A in any possible world, and non-trivial necessary conditions for being B in anypossible world, there are no non-trivial necessary conditions for being A that are not also necessaryconditions for being B, and vice versa. (Cf. Adams's ‘Moderate Haecceitism’ (1979, 24–26).)

5. Transworld identity and the transitivity of identityIt was argued above that the proponent of transworld identity without non-trivial individual essences facesthe prospect of bare (‘ungrounded’) identities across possible worlds. One such argument is Chisholm'sParadox, which relies on the transitivity of identity to produce the result that a series of small changes inthe properties of Adam and Noah leads to a world in which Adam and Noah have swapped their roles.However, the transitivity of identity generates additional problems concerning transworld identity, someof which have nothing particularly to do with role-switching possibilities or bare identities.

5.1 Chandler's transitivity argument

One such argument is given by Chandler (1976). It can be illustrated simply as follows (adaptingChandler's own example). Suppose that there is a bicycle originally composed of three parts: A1, B1, andC1. (We might suppose that A1 is the frame, and B1 and C1 the two wheels.) Suppose that we think thatany bicycle could have been originally composed of any two thirds of its original parts, with a substitutethird component. We may call this (following Forbes 1985) ‘the tolerance principle’; it is a fairly plausibledevelopment of the intuitively appealing thought that it is too much to demand, of an object such as abicycle, that it could not have existed unless all of its original parts had been the same. Suppose, further,that we think that no bicycle could have been originally composed of just one third of its original parts,even with substitutes for the other two thirds. Call this ‘the restriction principle’. The combination ofthese assumptions generates a difficulty for the paraphrase of de re modal claims about bicycles in termsof transworld identity. For if there is (as the tolerance principle allows) a possible world w2 in which ourbicycle comes into existence composed of parts A1 + B1 + C2, where C1 ≠ C2, then, if we apply thetolerance principle to this bicycle we must say that it could have come into existence (in some furtherpossible world w3) with any two thirds of those parts, with a substitute third component: for example, thatit could have come into existence (in w3) composed of A1 + B2 + C2, where B1 ≠ B2 and C1 ≠ C2. Thebicycle in w3 is, ex hypothesi, identical with the bicycle in w2, and the bicycle in w2 is, ex hypothesi,identical with the original bicycle; so, by the transitivity of identity, the bicycle in w3 is identical with theoriginal bicycle. Hence our assumptions have generated a contradiction. We have a bicycle in w3,originally composed of A1 + B2 + C2, that both is identical with the original bicycle (by the repeatedapplication of the tolerance principle, together with the transitivity of identity) and is not identical withthe original bicycle (by the restriction principle).

One might suggest that the version of the tolerance principle cited above is too lenient. Perhaps it is nottrue that the bicycle could have come into existence with just two thirds of its original components:perhaps a threshold of, say, 90% or more is required. However, the simple argument given above canobviously be adapted to generate a contradiction between the restriction principle and any toleranceprinciple that permits some difference in the bicycle's original composition, simply by introducing alonger chain of possible worlds. Thus the transitivity argument appears to force the proponent oftransworld identity to choose between two implausible claims: that an object such as a bicycle has all ofits original parts essentially (thus denying any version of the tolerance principle) and that an object suchas a bicycle could have come into existence with few (if any) of its original parts (thus denying any (non-trivial) version of the restriction principle). Moreover, it is clear that the problem can be generalized toany object to which versions of the tolerance principle and the restriction principle concerning its originalmaterial composition have application, which appears to include all artefacts, if not biological organisms.

It seems legitimate to call this puzzle a ‘problem of transworld identity’, for it turns partly on thetransitivity of identity, and can be avoided by interpreting claims about how bicycles could have beendifferent (de re modal claims about bicycles) in terms of a counterpart relation that is not transitive(Chandler 1976). Thus a counterpart theorist may admit that the bicycle could have been originallycomposed of A1 + B1 + C2 rather than A1 + B1 + C1, on the grounds that (according to the toleranceprinciple) it has a counterpart (in w2) that is originally so composed. And the counterpart theorist mayadmit that a bicycle (such as the one in w2) that is originally composed of A1 + B1 + C2 could have beenoriginally composed of A1 + B2 + C2, since (by the tolerance principle) it has a counterpart (in w3) that isoriginally so composed. However, since the counterpart relation (unlike identity) is not transitive, thecounterpart theorist need not say that the bicycle in w3 that is originally composed of A1 + B2 + C2 is acounterpart of the bicycle in the actual world (w1) originally composed of A1 + B1 + C1, for its similarityto the bicycle in w1 may be insufficient to allow it to be that bicycle's counterpart. Thus the non-transitivity of the counterpart relation (a relation based on resemblance) appears neatly to allow thecounterpart theorist to respect both the tolerance principle and the restriction principle, without fallinginto contradiction.

It can be noted that this transitivity problem (perhaps unlike Chisholm's Paradox) appears to have no

plausible solution that appeals to non-trivial individual essences. For it seems that to suppose that thebicycle has such an individual essence would not help unless we suppose that this essence involves itshaving absolutely all of its actual original parts, thus rejecting the tolerance principle.

Nevertheless, a solution to the transitivity problem has been proposed (by Chandler, followed by Salmon)which apparently allows us to reconcile all three of the transitivity of identity, the tolerance principle, andthe restriction principle. This is to say that although there are possible worlds (such as w3) in which thebicycle is originally composed of only a small proportion of its actual original parts, such worlds are notpossible relative to (not ‘accessible to’) the initial world w1. From the standpoint of w1, such an originalcomposition for the bicycle is only possibly possible: something that would have been possible, hadthings been different in some possible way, but is not, as things are, possible (Chandler 1976; Salmon1979; Salmon 1982, 238–40). Whether this solution is satisfactory is disputed. Admittedly, there are somecontexts in which we talk of possibility in a way that may suggest that the ‘accessibility relation’ betweenpossible worlds is non-transitive: that not everything that would have been possible, had things beendifferent in some possible way, is possible simpliciter. (If I had started writing this article earlier, it wouldhave been possible for me to finish it today. And I could have started writing this article earlier. But, asthings are, it is not possible for me to finish this article today.) Nevertheless, the idea that, as regards thetype of metaphysical possibility that is involved in puzzles such as that of the bicycle, there might bestates of affairs that are possibly possible and yet not possible (and hence that de re metaphysicalpossibility and necessity do not obey the system of modal logic known as S4) is regarded with suspicionby many philosophers. It is fair to say that there is no consensus about how the proponent of transworldidentity should respond to the transitivity problem posed by Chandler's example.

5.2 The ‘Four Worlds Paradox’

Chandler's transitivity argument can be adapted to produce a puzzle that is like those discussed in Sections4.1–4.2 above in that it involves the danger of ‘bare identities’, a puzzle that Salmon (1982) has called‘The Four Worlds Paradox’. To illustrate the puzzle: suppose that the actual world (w1) contains a bicycle,a, that is (actually) originally composed of A1 + B1 + C1, and suppose that there is a possible world, w5,containing a bicycle, b (not identical with a), that is originally composed (in w5) of A2 + B2 + C1 (whereA1 ≠ A2 and B1 ≠ B2). Then, it seems, the application of the tolerance principle to each of a and b maygenerate two further possible worlds, in one of which (w6) there is a bicycle with the original compositionA1 + B2 + C1 that is identical with a, and in the other of which (w7) there is a bicycle with the originalcomposition A1 + B2 + C1 that is identical with b. Since there need apparently be no further differencebetween the intrinsic features of w6 and w7 on which this difference in identities could depend, we appearto have a case of bare identities. This ‘Four Worlds Paradox’ is like Chandler's original transitivity puzzlein that it does not seem that an appeal to individual essences could solve it without conflicting with thetolerance principle. If so, the proponent of transworld identity (as opposed to counterpart theory) appearsto be left with two options: the denial of the tolerance principle, and the acceptance of bare identities,although it may be argued that the acceptance of bare identities can be made more palatable in such a caseby the adoption of a non-transitive accessibility relation between possible worlds. (See Salmon 1982,230–52; and, for a defence of the employment of counterpart theory to solve the Four Worlds Paradox,Forbes 1985, Ch. 7.)

6. Concluding remarks

6.1 Transworld identity and counterpart theory

One of our initial questions (Section 1 above) was whether a commitment to transworld identity—theview that an individual exists in more than one possible world—is an acceptable commitment for one whobelieves in possible worlds. The considerations of Sections 4–5 above suggest that this commitment does

involve genuine (although perhaps not insuperable) problems, even for one who does not accept DavidLewis's extreme realism about the nature of possible worlds. The problems in question do not arisedirectly from the notion of an individual's existing in more than one possible world with differentproperties. Rather, they derive principally from the fact that it is hard to accommodate all the things thatwe want to say about the modal properties of ordinary individuals (including all the things that we want tosay about their essential and accidental properties) if de re modal statements about such individuals arecharacterized in terms of their existence or non-existence in other possible worlds.

There is currently no consensus about the appropriate resolution of these problems. In particular, there isno consensus about whether the adoption of counterpart theory is superior to the solutions that areavailable to a transworld identity theorist. A full examination of the issue would require a discussion ofthe objections that have been raised against counterpart theory as an interpretation of de re modality. Anda detailed discussion of counterpart theory is beyond the scope of this article. (For David Lewis'spresentation of counterpart theory, the reader might start with Lewis 1973, 39–43, followed by (the moretechnical) Lewis 1968. Criticisms of Lewis's counterpart theory include those in Kripke 1980; Plantinga1973; and Plantinga 1974, Ch. 6. Lewis develops the 1968 version of his counterpart theory in Lewis1971 and 1986, Ch. 4; he responds to criticisms in his “Postscripts to ‘Counterpart Theory and QuantifiedModal Logic’” (1983, 39–46) and in Lewis 1986, Ch. 4. Other discussions of counterpart theory includeHazen 1979, the relevant sections of Divers 2002, Melia 2003, and the more technical treatment in Forbes1985; for a recent critique of the theory see Fara and Williamson 2005.)

One way to argue in favour of transworld identity is what we might call ‘the argument from logicalsimplicity’ (Linsky and Zalta 1994, 1996; Williamson 1998, 2000). The argument begins by noting thatQuantified Modal Logic—which combines individual quantifiers and modal operators—is greatlysimplified when one accepts the validity of the Barcan scheme, ∀x□A → □∀xA (Marcus 1946). Theresulting logic is sound and complete with respect to constant domain semantics, in which each possibleworld has precisely the same set of individuals in its domain. The simplest philosophical interpretation ofthis semantics is that one and the same individual exists at every possible world.

Several remarks on this argument are in order. First, its conclusion is very strong: it says that any entitythat in fact exists or that could have existed exists necessarily. There is no contingent existence. This goesfar beyond the claim that there are genuine identities across worlds. (Williamson (2002) defends thisconclusion on independent grounds.) Second, the argument does not offer an explanation of howtransworld identities are possible; it insists only that there are genuine transworld identities.(Nevertheless, the metaphysical picture that can most naturally be ‘read off’ the constant-domainsemantics treats properties-at-a-world as relations between particulars and worlds, as on McDaniel'smodal realism with overlap (McDaniel 2004), discussed in Section 1.2 above.)

Third, the argument is not best understood as the claim that, if one does not accept transworld identities,then one is forced into denying the Barcan scheme (and hence forced into uncomfortable logical territory).That claim would be true only if the Barcan scheme were validated only by constant-domain semantics,which is not the case. Counterpart-theoretic semantics can be restricted so as to validate the Barcanscheme, by insisting that the counterpart relation is an equivalence relation which, for each particular xand world w, relates x to a unique particular in w. (One could not then interpret the counterpart relation interms of similarity, as Lewis does.) Rather, the argument should be understood as the claim that the bestway to gain the advantages of a logic containing the Barcan scheme is by adopting constant-domainsemantics (and genuine transworld identities along with it). But just which metaphysical view counts as‘best’ here will involve a trade-off between many factors. These include the simplicity of the constant-domain semantics, on the one hand, but also arguments of the kind raised by Lewis against modal realismwith overlap, on the other.

6.2 Lewis on transworld identity and ‘existence according to a world’

Finally, we can note that Lewis (1986) has presented what is, in effect, a challenge to the self-styled

champions of ‘transworld identity’ to explain why the view that they insist on deserves to be called acommitment to transworld identity at all.

Throughout this article, it has been assumed that a commitment to transworld identity may bedifferentiated from a commitment to counterpart theory on the grounds that the transworld identitytheorist accepts, while the counterpart theorist denies, that an object exists in more than one possibleworld (cf. Section 1.2 above). However, as Lewis points out, there is a notion of ‘existence according to a(possible) world’ that is completely neutral as between a counterpart-theoretic and a ‘transworld identity’interpretation. In terms of this neutral conception, as long as the counterpart theorist and the transworldidentity theorist agree that Bertrand Russell could have been a playwright instead of a philosopher, theymust agree that Russell exists according to more than one world. In particular, they must agree that,according to our world, he exists and is a philosopher, and according to some other worlds, he exists andis a non-philosopher playwright (cf. Lewis 1986, 194). The difference between the theorists, then,allegedly consists in their different interpretations of what it is for Russell to exist ‘according to’ a world.In the view of the counterpart theorist, for Russell to exist according to a possible world in which he is aplaywright is for him to have a counterpart in that world who is (in that world) a playwright. According tothe transworld identity theorist, for Russell to exist according to a possible world in which he is aplaywright is supposed to be for Russell (himself) to exist in that world as a playwright.

If the transworld identity theorist were a Lewisian realist about possible worlds, this notion of existence ina world could be clearly distinguished from the neutral notion of existence according to a world, on thegrounds that the existence of Russell in a world would require his complete or partial presence as a part ofsuch a world (cf. Section 1.2 above). But, as Lewis notes, the self-styled champions of ‘transworldidentity’ who oppose his counterpart theory are philosophers who repudiate a Lewisian realist conceptionof what it would take for Russell to exist in more than one possible world. Hence, he suggests, there is aquestion about their entitlement to the claim that, according to their theory, Russell exists in other possibleworlds in any sense that goes beyond the neutral thesis (which is compatible with counterpart theory) thatRussell exists according to other worlds. Thus Lewis writes (using the presidential candidate HubertHumphrey as his example):

The philosophers' chorus on behalf of ‘trans-world identity’ is merely insisting that, for instance, it isHumphrey himself who might have existed under other conditions, … who might have won thepresidency, who exists according to many worlds and wins according to some of them. All that isuncontroversial. The controversial question is how he manages to have these modal properties. (1986,198)

A natural reaction to Lewis's challenge is to point out that a proponent of transworld identity who is not aLewisian realist will typically reject Lewis's counterpart theory on the grounds that his counterpartrelation does not have the logic of identity. If so, then (pace Lewis) it is not the case, strictly speaking,that the ‘philosophers’ chorus on behalf of “trans-world identity” is merely insisting on the neutral claimthat objects exist according to more than one world. However, even if this is correct, it does not answer afurther potential challenge. Suppose, as seems plausible, that there could, at least in principle, be acounterpart relation that (unlike the one proposed by Lewis himself) is an equivalence relation (transitive,symmetric, and reflexive), and ‘one-one between worlds’. What would distinguish, in the case of atheorist who is not a Lewisian realist about possible worlds, between, on the one hand, a commitment tothe interpretation of de re modal statements in terms of such an ‘identity-resembling’ counterpart relation,and, on the other hand, a commitment to genuine transworld identity (and hence to the view that anindividual genuinely exists in a number of distinct possible worlds)? As far as we are aware, no aficionadoof transworld identity has attempted to reply to this challenge.

BibliographyAdams, R. M., 1974, “Theories of Actuality”, Noûs, 8: 211–31. Reprinted in Loux 1979.

–––, 1979, “Primitive Thisness and Primitive Identity”, The Journal of Philosophy, 76: 5–26. Reprinted inKim and Sosa 1999.

Bottani, A., Carrara, M., and Giaretta, P. (eds.), 2002, Individuals, Essence and Identity: Themes ofAnalytic Metaphysics, Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Brody, B., 1980, Identity and Essence, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Chandler, H., 1976, “Plantinga and the Contingently Possible”, Analysis, 36: 106–9.Chihara, C., 1998, The Worlds of Possibility, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Chisholm, R., 1967, “Identity through Possible Worlds: Some Questions”, Noûs, 1: 1–8. Reprinted in

Loux 1979, and in Kim and Sosa 1999.Coburn, R., 1986, “Individual Essences and Possible Worlds”, in French, Uehling, and Wettstein 1986,

165–83.Della Rocca, M., 1996, “Recent Work in Essentialism, Part II”, Philosophical Books, 37: 81–89.Divers, J., 2002, Possible Worlds, London: Routledge.Fara, M., and Williamson, T., 2005, “Counterparts and Actuality”, Mind, 114: 1–30.Forbes, G., 1980, “Origin and Identity”, Philosophical Studies, 37: 353–62.–––, 1985, The Metaphysics of Modality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.–––, 1986, “In Defense of Absolute Essentialism”, in French, Uehling, and Wettstein 1986, 3–31.–––, 1994, “A New Riddle of Existence”, in Philosophical Perspectives 8: Logic and Language, J.

Tomberlin (ed.), Atascadero, CA: Ridgeview, 415–30.–––, 1997, “Essentialism”, in Hale and Wright 1997, 515–33.–––, 2002, “Origins and Identities”, in Bottani, Carrara, and Giaretta 2002, 319–40.French, P., Uehling, T., and Wettstein, H., (eds.), 1986, Midwest Studies in Philosophy XI: Studies in

Essentialism, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Hale, B., and Wright, C., (eds.), 1997, A Companion to the Philosophy of Language, Oxford: Blackwell.Haslanger, S., 2003, “Persistence through Time”, in Loux and Zimmerman 2003, 315–54.Hawley, K., 2001, How Things Persist, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hawthorne, J., and Gendler, T. S., 2000, “Origin Essentialism: the Arguments Revisited”, Mind, 109:

285–98.Hazen, A., 1979, “Counterpart-Theoretic Semantics for Modal Logic”, The Journal of Philosophy, 76:

319–38.Hughes, C., 2004, Kripke: Names, Necessity, and Identity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Kaplan, D., 1967/1979, “Transworld Heir Lines”, in Loux 1979, 88–109.–––, 1975, “How to Russell a Frege-Church”, The Journal of Philosophy, 72: 716–29. Reprinted in Loux

1979.Kim, J., and Sosa, E., (eds.), 1995, A Companion to Metaphysics, Oxford: Blackwell.–––, (eds.), 1999, Metaphysics: An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell.Kripke, S., 1972, “Naming and Necessity”, in Semantics of Natural Language, D. Davidson and G.

Harman (eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel, 252–355. (Reprinted in revised form as a monograph by BasilBlackwell, Oxford, 1980.)

–––, 1980, Naming and Necessity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Expanded monograph version of Kripke1972.)

Leibniz, G. W., 1973, Leibniz, Philosophical Writings, G. Parkinson (ed.), trans. M. Morris and G.Parkinson, London: Dent.

Lewis, D., 1968, “Counterpart Theory and Quantified Modal Logic”, The Journal of Philosophy, 65: 113–26. Reprinted in Loux 1979 and (with additional “Postscripts”) in Lewis 1983.

–––, 1971, “Counterparts of Persons and Their Bodies”, The Journal of Philosophy, 68: 203–11.Reprinted in Lewis 1983.

–––, 1973, Counterfactuals, Oxford: Blackwell. (Extracts from pp. 39–41 and 84–91 reprinted in Loux1979, 125–8 and 182–9.)

–––, 1983, Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, Oxford: Oxford University Press.–––, 1986, On the Plurality of Worlds, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Sections 1–3 of Chapter 4 reprinted in

Kim and Sosa 1999.)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: 283–294.Loux, M., (ed.), 1979, The Possible and the Actual, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.–––, 1998, Metaphysics: a contemporary introduction, London: Routledge.Loux, M., and Zimmerman, D., (eds.), 2003, The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Lowe, E. J., 2002, A Survey of Metaphysics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.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, 140–55.

McGinn, C., 1976, “On the Necessity of Origin”, The Journal of Philosophy, 73: 127–35.McKay, T., 1986, “Against Constitutional Sufficiency Principles”, in French, Uehling, and Wettstein

1986, 295–304.Mackie, J. L., 1974, “De What Re is De Re Modality?”, The Journal of Philosophy, 71: 551–61.Mackie, P., 1987, “Essence, Origin, and Bare Identity”, Mind, 96: 173–201.–––, 1989, “Identity and Extrinsicness: Reply to Garrett”, Mind, 98: 105–17.–––, 1998, “Identity, Time, and Necessity”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 98: 59–78.–––, 2002, “Forbes on Origins and Identities”, in Bottani, Carrara, and Giaretta 2002, 341–52.–––, 2006, How Things Might Have Been: Individuals, Kinds, and Essential Properties, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Marcus, R. B., 1946, “A Functional Calculus of First Order Based on Strict Implication”, Journal of

Symbolic Logic, 11: 1–16.Melia, J., 2003, Modality, Chesham: Acumen Publishing Company.Mills, E., 1991, “Forbes's Branching Conception of Possible Worlds”, Analysis, 51: 48–50.Noonan, H., 1983, “The Necessity of Origin”, Mind, 92: 1–20.–––, 1985, “Wiggins, Artefact Identity and ‘Best Candidate’ Theories”, Analysis, 45: 4–8.–––, 1989, Personal Identity, London: Routledge.–––, 2003, Personal Identity, Second edition, London: Routledge.Plantinga, A., 1973, “Transworld Identity or Worldbound Individuals?”, in Logic and Ontology, M.

Munitz (ed.), New York, NY: New York University Press. Reprinted in Loux 1979.–––, 1974, The Nature of Necessity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Prior, A. N., 1960, “Identifiable Individuals”, The Review of Metaphysics, 13: 684–96. Reprinted in Prior,

Papers on Time and Tense, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968.Quine, W. V., 1976, “Worlds Away”, The Journal of Philosophy, 73: 859–63. Reprinted in Quine,

Theories and Things, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981.Robertson, T., 1998, “Possibilities and the Arguments for Origin Essentialism”, Mind, 107: 729–49.Salmon, N., 1979, “How Not to Derive Essentialism from the Theory of Reference”, The Journal of

Philosophy, 76: 703–25.–––, 1982, Reference and Essence, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.–––, 1986, “Modal Paradox: Parts and Counterparts, Points and Counterpoints”, in French, Uehling, and

Wettstein 1986, 75–120.Sider, T., 2001, Four-Dimensionalism: an Ontology of Persistence and Time, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.Stalnaker, R., 1976, “Possible Worlds”, Noûs, 10: 65–75. Reprinted in Loux 1979.–––, 1986, “Counterparts and Identity”, in French, Uehling, and Wettstein 1986, 121–40.–––, 1995, “Modalities and Possible Worlds”, in Kim and Sosa 1995, 333–7.Strawson, P. F., 1976, “Entity and Identity”, in Contemporary British Philosophy, Fourth Series, H. D.

Lewis (ed.), London: George Allen and Unwin, 193–220. Reprinted in Strawson, Entity and Identity,Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.

van Inwagen, P., 1985, “Plantinga on Trans-world Identity”, in Alvin Plantinga, J. Tomberlin and P. vanInwagen (eds.), Dordrecht: Reidel, 101–20. Reprinted in van Inwagen, Ontology, Identity, andModality: Essays in Metaphysics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Wiggins, D., 1967, Identity and Spatio-temporal Continuity, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.–––, 1980, Sameness and Substance, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.–––, 2001, Sameness and Substance Renewed, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Williamson, T., 1990, Identity and Discrimination, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.–––,1998, “Bare Possibilia”, Erkenntnis, 48: 257–73.–––, 2000, “Existence and Contingency”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 100: 117–39.–––, 2002, “Necessary Existents”, in Logic, Thought and Language, A. O'Hear (ed.), Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 233–51.Yablo, S., 1988, Review of Forbes, The Metaphysics of Modality, The Journal of Philosophy, 85: 329–37.Yagisawa, T., 2010, Worlds and Individuals, Possible and Otherwise, New York: Oxford University Press.

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 Indiana Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO).Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers, with links to its database.

Other Internet Resources[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Related Entriesactualism | essential vs. accidental properties | haecceity: medieval theories of | identity | identity: overtime | identity: relative | possible objects | possible worlds | temporal parts

Copyright © 2013 by Penelope Mackie <penelope.mackie@nottingham.ac.uk>

Mark Jago <mark.jago@nottingham.ac.uk>

Open access to the SEP is made possible by a world-wide funding initiative.Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free

The SEP would like to congratulate the National Endowment for the Humanities on its 50th anniversaryand express our indebtedness for the five generous grants it awarded our project from 1997 to 2007.

Readers who have benefited from the SEP are encouraged to examine the NEH’s anniversary page and, ifinspired to do so, send a testimonial to neh50@neh.gov.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2014 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Centerfor the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054