<P> Today, possible worlds play a central role in many debates in philosophy, including especially debates over the Zombie Argument, and physicalism and supervenience in the philosophy of mind . Many debates in the philosophy of religion have been reawakened by the use of possible worlds . Intense debate has also emerged over the ontological status of possible worlds, provoked especially by David Lewis's defense of modal realism, the doctrine that talk about "possible worlds" is best explained in terms of innumerable, really existing worlds beyond the one we live in . The fundamental question here is: given that modal logic works, and that some possible - worlds semantics for modal logic is correct, what has to be true of the world, and just what are these possible worlds that we range over in our interpretation of modal statements? Lewis argued that what we range over are real, concrete worlds that exist just as unequivocally as our actual world exists, but that are distinguished from the actual world simply by standing in no spatial, temporal, or causal relations with the actual world . (On Lewis's account, the only "special" property that the actual world has is a relational one: that we are in it . This doctrine is called "the indexicality of actuality": "actual" is a merely indexical term, like "now" and "here".) Others, such as Robert Adams and William Lycan, reject Lewis's picture as metaphysically extravagant, and suggest in its place an interpretation of possible worlds as consistent, maximally complete sets of descriptions of or propositions about the world, so that a "possible world" is conceived of as a complete description of a way the world could be--rather than a world that is that way . (Lewis describes their position, and similar positions such as those advocated by Alvin Plantinga and Peter Forrest, as "ersatz modal realism", arguing that such theories try to get the benefits of possible worlds semantics for modal logic "on the cheap", but that they ultimately fail to provide an adequate explanation .) Saul Kripke, in Naming and Necessity, took explicit issue with Lewis's use of possible worlds semantics, and defended a stipulative account of possible worlds as purely formal (logical) entities rather than either really existent worlds or as some set of propositions or descriptions . </P> <P> Possible worlds theory in literary studies uses concepts from possible - world logic and applies them to worlds that are created by fictional texts, fictional universe . In particular, possible - world theory provides a useful vocabulary and conceptual framework with which to describe such worlds . However, a literary world is a specific type of possible world, quite distinct from the possible worlds in logic . This is because a literary text houses its own system of modality, consisting of actual worlds (actual events) and possible worlds (possible events). In fiction, the principle of simultaneity, it extends to cover the dimensional aspect, when it is contemplated that two or more physical objects, realities, perceptions and objects non-physical, can coexist in the same space - time . Thus, a literary universe is granted autonomy in much the same way as the actual universe . </P> <P> Literary critics, such as Marie - Laure Ryan, Lubomír Doležel, and Thomas Pavel, have used possible - worlds theory to address notions of literary truth, the nature of fictionality, and the relationship between fictional worlds and reality . Taxonomies of fictional possibilities have also been proposed where the likelihood of a fictional world is assessed . Possible - world theory is also used within narratology to divide a specific text into its constituent worlds, possible and actual . In this approach, the modal structure of the fictional text is analysed in relation to its narrative and thematic concerns . Rein Raud has extended this approach onto "cultural" worlds, comparing possible worlds to the particular constructions of reality of different cultures . However, the metaphor of the "cultural possible worlds" relates to the framework of cultural relativism and, depending on the ontological status ascribed to possible worlds, warrants different, often controversial claims ranging from ethnocentrism to cultural imperialism . </P>

Refers to the representation of the world or a way the world could possibly be