Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>> about the semantics of modal logics? isn't it a theory of truth which
>>>> consists of multiple, concurrent so-called 'possible worlds'?
>>> 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.
>> agree. but, as you yourself say, there are those who disagree, and
>> the best thing you can say is that IYO (note the 'O') they are incorrect.
> Well, I wouldnt even say that, actually. But if you recall, the original
> debate was whether or not model theory (Tarskian or Kripkean) amounted
> to an objective theory of truth. (01)
yes, of course. (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.
>> yes. one problem that i can see with tarskian and the like semantics
>> as a theory of truth is that it requires you to take a snapshot of the
>> world, necessarily excluding its dynamics.
> I dont think so. You just have to construe the Tarskian universe as
> 4-dimensional, which is a powerful ontological framework in any case
> (though admittedly controversial). (03)
well, this answer was expected. what you do is just make time another
dimension, and describe the universe as a 4d one (presuming it was
described as 3d before) -- still taking snaphots. the point is, while
you speak of the world (now 4d), it does not change. if you speak of an
object (or whatever) located within a particular region of the 4d space,
neither the object nor its location change. in a sense, you immobilize
time. all statements made in the logic are effective at the same time
(i admit that now we got the tricky issue of which time is meant; to
say that they are in effect simultaneously only makes the issue less
but whether this has any influence on the pragmatics, is another story
(intuitively, i'd say so, but i can't state it precisely now). so think
of it as an artificial problem, until i come with some good arguments to
the contrary (if i come to that). (05)
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (07)