Question

To fit metaphysical indeterminacy into this picture Barnes and Williams [claim]... the possible worlds in these theories are perfectly precise... Metaphysical indeterminacy corresponds to multiple actuality... [but] what is physically necessary is determinately true... [so] there are no actual worlds. That, of course, is an absurd conclusion. What has happened is that the Barnes-Williams model of metaphysical indeterminacy has broken down.

Does this mean nothing optically indeterminate is metaphysically necessary?

Answer 1

Metaphysical indeterminacy refers to multiple possibilities existing in the metaphysical realm, but the physical world is determinate. The Barnes-Williams model of metaphysical indeterminacy breaks down because it leads to an absurd conclusion. Not everything that is optically indeterminate is metaphysically necessary.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question is discussing the concept of metaphysical indeterminacy and its relationship to possible worlds. Metaphysical indeterminacy refers to the idea that multiple outcomes or possibilities can exist in the metaphysical realm.

However, the physical world is determinate and governed by physical laws, so there can only be one actual outcome. The Barnes-Williams model of metaphysical indeterminacy breaks down because it leads to the absurd conclusion that there are no actual worlds. This means that not everything that is optically indeterminate is metaphysically necessary.