rationalskepticism.org

Thommo wrote:

Paul Almond wrote:My own view would be that the set of possible worlds should be the set of all worlds which we do not know to be inconsistent with our knowledge - and I would actually admit logically inconsistent worlds into this set.

I think this is indeed the standard practise.

I don't think that most logicians use "possible world" in the sense of "epistemically possible world" rather than "logically possible world" or "ontologically/metaphysically possible world". And internally inconsistent or contradictory worlds are impossible worlds rather than possible worlds.