In a similar vein, suppose, following Black (1952), that there could be a world containing only two qualitatively indiscernible iron spheres.
Consider mass: one might hold that it is metaphysically impossible for there to be a world containing just two massive particles, accelerating away from each other and that this impossibility somehow flows from the nature of mass itself.
It is a world containing my promise and a world in which there can be no promises.
A way out of this paradox is to deny that worlds and, hence, objects generally, form sets. Indeed, that they do not seems to follow from R. For R entails that, for any cardinal number κ, there is a world containing at least κ objects.
McTaggart opts for the latter view, and for this reason, McTaggart accepts the repugnant conclusion, which is that a universe containing millions of people whose lives are barely worth living might be better than a world containing far fewer people, each of whom live lives of spectacular value.
For example, any possible world that, as a matter of law, obeys the general principles of Newtonian physics is a world in which Newton's first is true, and a world containing accelerating inertial bodies is a world in which Newton's first is false.
Most of us were born into a world containing antibiotics, so it is easy to feel they are permanent fixtures in the arsenal of medicines.
can be shown to be true with respect to a world containing \(A\ s and \(B\ s.
"Knowing that Jones exists" would (in a world containing Jones) be a property of any omniscient being existing in that world.
This is based on the Irenaean idea of human development, suggesting that the best possible world would be best suited to human development: a world containing evil and suffering would allow development better than one which does not, so the world is considered the best possible world.
In short, if life is a good thing, and if a world containing good things of more different kinds is better than a world containing good things of fewer kinds, then higher biodiversity is better than lower biodiversity.
