NELSON GOODMAN
277
when completed in some such way as in "The earth moves relative to
the sun" or "The earth is at rest relative to Mount Everest"? This
does not work either; for what can these statements mean? Perhaps,
in the former case,
"If
the sun is at rest, then the earth moves" . But
then the antecedent and consequent are themselves fragments of
statements , without truth-value until completed; and so on ad in–
finitum. Or should we translate to
"If
the sun's position is plotted as a
point, the earth's positions will be plotted as a path"? Then , since the
diagrams are simply (nonverbal) versions, we are back to simple–
minded relativization.
How, then, are we to accommodate conflicting truths without
sacrificing the difference between truth and falsity? Perhaps by
treating these versions as true in different worlds. Versions not ap–
plying in the same world no longer conflict; contradiction is avoided
by segregation. A true version is true in some worlds, a false version
in none . Thus the multiple worlds of conflicting true versions are ac–
tual worlds, not the merely possible worlds or nonworlds of false ver–
SlOns .
So if there is any actual world, there are many . For there are
conflicting true versions and they cannot be true in the same world .
If
the notion of a multiplicity of actual worlds is odd and un–
palatable, we nevertheless seem forced to it by the intolerable alter–
native of a world in which contradictory and therefore all versions
are true .
But where are these many actual worlds? How are they related
to one another? Are there many earths all going along different routes
at the same time and risking collision? Of course not; in any world
there is only one Earth ; and the several worlds are not distributed in
any space-time . Space-time is an ordering within a world; the space–
times of different worlds are not embraced within some greater space–
time. Worlds are distinguished by the conflict or irreconcilability of
their versions; and any ordering among them is other than spatio–
temporal.
Yet however intricately and plausibly this idea may be
developed, how can there really be many worlds? There may be
many stars, many planets, many chairs, many things, many events;
and truths about them may conflict and contrast in all sorts of ways.
But "world" is all-inclusive, covers all there is . A world is a totality;
there can be no multiplicity of totalities , no more than one all-
