Worlds That Shouldn’t Exist: Theoretical Perspectives on Impossible Worlds

This paper investigates whether impossible worlds provide a more effective framework than possible worlds for representing phenomena often grouped under ‘impossibility’—from paradoxes and fictional entities to countermetaphysical scenarios. It examines how impossible worlds address limitations in modal logic, particularly in capturing hyperintensional distinctions, epistemic inconsistencies, and non-trivial counterpossibles. A typology is proposed based on three axes: violation (of logical/metaphysical laws), difference (in logic or ontology), and openness (degree of structural specification). The final section considers competing ontological accounts—realist, abstract, fictionalist, and linguistic and asks how impossible worlds can represent what cannot be. In short: what does it mean to be about what cannot be?