[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Re: OWL and lack of identifiers

To: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:02:27 -0700
Message-id: <p0623093ec25b265711d5@[]>
>Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>  Reality doesn't exist in the absence of perspective.  Reality is
>>>  subjective, not objective.
>>  Absolute nonsense. Reality existed for billions
>>  of years before there was anything that could
>>  form a subjective view of it. If, as seems quite
>>  possible, this planet contains the only life
>>  capable of having a subjective view, and our sun
>>  goes nova and wipes us all out, the universe will
>>  carry on being objectively real without noticing
>>  our passing.
>>>   When people speak, they speak the truth if
>>>  they say what is real for them.
>>  No. They speak the truth when what they say is in
>>  fact the case, in the actual world.
>>>  The *real* worlds are the worlds that
>>>  are real *for persons*.
>>  No, the real world is the one that persons
>>  inhabit and are part of. There is only one of it.
>haven't you just said that logical semantics is a theory of truth?  what
>about the semantics of modal logics?  isn't it a theory of truth which
>consists of multiple, concurrent so-called 'possible worlds'?    (01)

Not necessarily concurrent. And as you say, 
'so-called'. What these are depends on the 
modality in question. Temporal logic for example 
has 'possible worlds' being snapshots of a single 
temporal plenum, which IMO is the single real 
world. Alethic modalities (necessary and 
possible) are often described as being about 
entire possible worlds, but (as Kripke, the 
inventor of these semantics, says) one can think 
of these most usefully as being ways the actual 
world might be, rather than fully-fledged 
alternative worlds. IN fact, Lewis' 
interpretation, which gives all possible worlds 
the same status, is widely (and IMO correctly) 
seen as an extreme and perhaps untenable 
position. The Kripke view, expounded in his 
"naming and necessity", is that alethic talk is 
really about lack of information. We don't know 
exactly how the world actually is, and so there 
are many ways it might be consistent with the 
information we have. These ways it might be are 
the 'possible worlds' that the Kripke semantics 
envisions.    (02)

But in any case, I was referring to Tarskian 
semantics for non-modal languages earlier in the 
thread. Most ontology languages aren't modal.    (03)

Pat    (04)

>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    (05)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (06)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>