[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology, Information Models and the 'Real World': C

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: KCliffer@xxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2007 07:17:34 EDT
Message-id: <bec.105eae33.3392abce@xxxxxxx>
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?

Kenneth Cliffer, Ph.D.

See what's free at AOL.com.

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)

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