> The papers I've seen on possible worlds seem to cover a wide variety
> of
> other topics like, necessity, possibility, etc ... (01)
Yes, worlds (re-)entered the philosophical lexicon to provide an
intuitive underpinning to Kripke's formal semantics for modal logic.
Formally, the set of "possible worlds" in Kripke semantics is just a
set W of featureless objects whose role is basically to index a
collection of Tarski interpretations. Since, in a Kripke model of a
given modal language, every sentence of the language is true or false
at any given element w of W, "possible world" is a reasonably natural
and intuitive label, as a possible world is, intuitively, a complete
"way things could be", a complete "alternative description" of reality. (02)
> http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~jperry/PHILPAPERS/posswld.pdf
>
> Would you happen to have a reference to an academic paper the
> defines an
> interpretation as a world? (03)
Well, that's sort of mixing apples and oranges Interpretations are
formal, mathematical models. Worlds (unless stipulated otherwise) are
inherently, informal, philosophical entities. Each bears similarities
to the other, but one can't *define* a formal notion in terms of an
informal one. (04)
> CL model theory doesn't make the same claim: that an interpretation
> is a world. Why? (05)
I'd say for the reason just noted. (06)
-chris (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|