Gideon Rosen's "Modal Fictionalism" (1990), a short paper in *Mind*, became one of the most discussed positions in the philosophy of modality by proposing a radical middle path: accept the expressive power of Lewis's plurality, reject its ontological commitment. When you say “I could have taken the other job,” Rosen holds, you are saying truly that according to the fiction of possible worlds, some world contains a counterpart of you who took that job. The fiction does its work without the worlds needing to exist. The plurality becomes a story we tell about modality, not a plurality we discover. Lewis built a universe of universes; Rosen borrowed it, used it, and handed it back.

Rosen's paper set the terms for two decades of debate. Brock ("Modal Fictionalism: A Response to Rosen," 1993) pressed the first major objection: fictionalism threatens to reduce modal claims to claims about what the fiction says, which presupposes a non-fictional fact about the fiction. Divers (*Possible Worlds*, 2002) and Nolan (*Topics in the Philosophy of Possible Worlds*, 2002) canvassed Lewisian and fictionalist variants side by side. Hale ("Modal Fictionalism: A Simple Dilemma," 1995) and Noonan (1994) sharpened Brock's dilemma. Sider (*Writing the Book of the World*, 2011) moved the tradition toward pragmatic deflation: modal talk as a useful tool whose commitments do not penetrate metaphysics. Woodward ("Is Modal Fictionalism Artificial?," 2011) defended Rosen's account against the charge that the fiction is hopelessly artificial; Rosen himself later partially distanced himself from the most extreme version of the view. What the literature preserves is a test case: how far can modal talk be deflated before the deflation undermines the level at which talk itself happens?

Modal fictionalism presses directly against the necessity claim of the argument. The current proof chain separates the relevant work. [§2.1](<2.1 The S5 Pipeline.md>) supplies Necessary Possibility / S5, [§2.6](<2.6 Triconditionality of Nature.md>) identifies the structural roles required by change, [§2.6.6](<2.6.6 Modal Identity.md>) gives the Modal Identity, and [§2.8.5](<2.8.5 Necessity of Nature.md>) declares the Necessity of Nature: □(T∧S∧Φ), the necessary obtaining of the three structural Conditions borne by Time, Space, and Substance. On the fictionalist picture, that claim is true only insofar as the fiction of possible worlds licenses it. But the fiction is a story, not a feature of reality. If the argument's necessity claim is a claim about a story, its ontological weight dissolves. The argument has proved something about the fiction we use to talk about modality, not something about reality. The structural-exhaustion claim suffers in parallel: if exhaustion is fictional, no actual alternative was ever excluded.

A clarification before the moves. The dispute is not with the usefulness of fictionalist semantics for counterfactual reasoning. The question is whether the fiction can be told without the structural conditions the fiction is meant to deflate. If telling the story requires T, S, and Φ, the structure is not what the fiction is about. It is what makes the fiction tellable. Three forms of the move press the answer at three resolutions: the bare story-element move, the meta-level refinement, and the no-correspondence move. The space they canvass is the space modal fictionalism can occupy. Each concedes the structural conditions at the level the argument's claim applies.

*First.* The story-element move holds that modal claims are true according to the fiction, not true *simpliciter* (Latin: "absolutely," without qualification). “Possible world w₀ lacks T, S, and Φ” is a coherent story element; the story is part of the fiction; therefore the fictionalist can say w₀ is possible without committing to its ontology. The argument's individuation conditions for concrete possible worlds do not apply to story elements.

The relevant world-fiction must be disciplined enough to support the fictionalist's translation scheme, though fictional discourse can represent contradictions without thereby collapsing. The key question is not whether the act of telling is structured, but whether the fiction licenses the target modal claim under the adopted analysis. The question is whether the story of w₀ (a world lacking T, S, and Φ) can be coherently told. Telling the story requires individuating w₀ as distinct from other story elements (Space), attributing the property “lacks T, S, and Φ” to it (Substance, since attribution is a persistent relation between term and attribute), and unfolding the telling sequentially across moments of consideration as one element follows another (Time). The story about w₀ cannot be told without instantiating the roles w₀ is defined by the absence of. A fiction of a worldless world is a fiction written nowhere.

*Second.* The meta-level refinement concedes the first reply and still preserves the move. The fictionalist can accept that storytelling instantiates T, S, and Φ and still insist that w₀'s properties are fictional. The story requires structure at the meta-level; it does not require structure within the story. w₀ can lack structure as a story element even if the act of telling the story about w₀ requires structure.

The meta/story distinction blocks any inference from the structure of telling to the structure of the represented world. At most, the actual performance supplies act-side evidence that the actual world is structured. It does not establish that every real possibility instantiates the loaded types. The remaining dispute is therefore about the non-fictional modal resources needed to state which world-fiction is correct, not about storytelling as a cross-world proof. The story can contain any element the fictionalist wants (including structureless worlds), and the argument's claim about reality holds regardless. The fictionalist's modal claims reduce to claims about a story, and the reality in which the story is told instantiates the structural roles as the condition of the story being tellable. The deflation runs at the story level; the argument runs at the level that has to be there for stories to be told at all. This is Brock's dilemma (1993) arriving at the point of deployment rather than in the abstract. Fictionalism can state its modal truths only by presupposing a non-fictional fact about what the fiction says, and the meta-level refinement names that non-fictional fact outright, that reality instantiates T, S, and Φ as the condition of the story's being told. The refinement does not evade the dilemma; it is the dilemma realized at exactly the level the argument's claim occupies.

*Third.* The no-correspondence move presses the boldest version. Modal claims have no truth conditions beyond what the fiction specifies. There is no fact of the matter about whether w₀ is possible beyond what the story says. The argument's claim that w₀ is incoherent is itself just another story about stories: a meta-fiction whose ontological weight is no greater than the fiction it critiques.

The boldest version is unstable at the meta-level. If modal claims have no truth conditions beyond what the fiction specifies, the fictionalist still owes a non-circular account of the translation's correctness and of which fiction is privileged. The meta-claim about that semantics is not automatically itself modal, so self-defeat does not follow merely from its formulation. What the move cannot do is extend the no-truth-conditions treatment to that meta-claim itself: the account of the translation's correctness and of which fiction is privileged must hold non-fictionally, or the position dissolves into a fiction about fictions with nothing to recommend it. The escape is purchased by admitting a level of non-fictional fact. At the level at which the fictionalist's meta-position is coherent, it requires the structural conditions the argument identifies, each realized through its bearer: a reasoner (Substance) who evaluates fictions (Time) and distinguishes the meta-fiction from the fictions it describes (Space). The bold move does not escape structure. It demonstrates structure as the condition of its own coherence.

A kindred move drops full-blown fictionalism for Sider's (2011) pragmatic deflationism: modal talk serves practical purposes and carries no deep ontological commitment, but neither does it require a full-scale fiction. The reply follows the same path. Pragmatic deflation evaluates modal statements by their utility for reasoners whose reasoning instantiates the roles; the pragmatic frame is the structure's tool for its own modal reasoning. Deflation does not escape structure; it describes structure's modal practice from within.

The Lewisian concrete-worlds alternative is [§4.4.1](<4.4.1 Modal Realism.md>). The modal-collapse worry, that necessary grounds propagate necessity through all of modal structure, is [§4.4.9](<4.4.9 Modal Collapse Objection.md>). Williamson's necessitism is [§4.4.6](<4.4.6 Necessitism.md>); Sider's structuralism is [§4.4.7](<4.4.7 Sider's Structuralism.md>). The Whiteheadian process ontology is [§4.4.8](<4.4.8 Whiteheadian Process Metaphysics.md>). The parody objection, that the argument's modal machinery licenses absurd conclusions, is [§4.4.10](<4.4.10 Gasking's Parody of the Ontological Argument.md>).

*What converges.* Each of the three forms concedes the structural conditions at the level the argument's claim applies. The story-element move fails because the fiction itself must be tellable: telling the story of a worldless world requires individuating it (Space), attributing properties to it (Substance), and unfolding the telling across moments of consideration (Time), a fiction written nowhere. The meta-level refinement saves the move only by conceding that the structural roles operate at the meta-level, which is exactly where the argument's claim applies. The no-correspondence move preserves its coherence only by admitting a non-fictional level: the account of which fiction is privileged must hold independently of any fiction, and at that level the structural conditions apply.

Rosen's paper was written at a moment when Lewis's plurality had begun to look, to many of its readers, like a *reductio* of the very modal realism it was built to defend. Fictionalism promised the semantics without the ontology: a way to talk about worlds without being committed to them. What the three decades of debate since have shown is that the promise could not be kept at the level the argument is concerned with. The fiction can dispense with the worlds; the storytelling cannot dispense with the storyteller, the time in which the story unfolds, or the space across which its elements are distinguished. Rosen's instinct (that modal talk does not commit us to a vast plurality) was sound. His conclusion mistook the target. That Rosen himself later drew back from the strongest version of fictionalism is not incidental to the case: he retreated under precisely the pressure these three forms exert, the recognition that the deflation cannot be carried all the way down without dissolving the level at which the deflating is itself done. What modal talk does not commit us to is the plurality. What it commits us to is the structural conditions any plurality, real or fictional, has to be told within.


---

← [4.4.3 Combinatorialism](<4.4.3 Combinatorialism.md>) | [4.4.5 Modal Expressivism](<4.4.5 Modal Expressivism.md>) →
