I'm not sure I'm getting all the depth and subtleties, but will raise a
possibly pertinent point - if it's not pertinent, please advise - the point is
embedded in Waclaw's part of the following:
Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Pat
Hayes wrote:
>> And, I guess,
>>
>> "the
'continuous present' indicated by the English 'ing' ending, as in
>>
It is raining, means that the proposition 'rains' is true
throughout
>> some interval containing 'now'" [IKL
guide]
>>
>> should be read as
>>
>> "the
'continuous present' indicated by the English 'ing' ending, as in
>>
It is raining, means that the false proposition 'rains' stands in
the
>> ist relation to some interval containing 'now'"?
>
> Why do you assume that 'rains' is logically false? I have no idea
what
> its actual logical truth-value is;
because I
take
(that (rains))
to be a proposition that it rains, without
any indexicals, that is, that
it rains everywhere, at all times. Or
how should it be understood?
It could be understood as "rain happens" (i.e. it rains somewhere
sometimes, in general), rather than it rains everywhere, at all times. Either is
a reasonable interpretation of the English statement, depending on ... gulp ...
context or ... (not gulp?) ... intent. And I think it's still without any
indexicals (?). In the same sense, "Pat sleeps" could be understood as "Pat
sleeps sometimes", rather than "Pat sleeps all the time". Either of these
alternative interpretations would be true, not false, in an unequivocal
"universal" sense. In fact, the more general interpretations (somewhere,
sometimes) may even lend themselves better to contextual specification
or relation about when and where.
> but in any case that would be
> irrelevant to its
*contextual* truth, which is modelled in IKL by the
> ist relation.
"True throughout an interval" and "standing in the ist
> relation to an
interval" are just two ways to say the same thing. Or
> perhaps, if you
feel that truth at a time is something fundamental, by
> all means say
that the ist-formulation is IKL's way of modelling or
> describing or
representing the notion of truth at a time.
But are we not taking a
round here, saying that (ist c p) *does* mean
that p *is true* in c, even
if it is false?
vQ
Ken
Kenneth
Cliffer, Ph.D.
|
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|