Dear Matthew, (01)
I have no quarrel about the phrase "plan for a world". I was
objecting to the implication that the plans somehow "populated"
that world. (02)
[MW] Actually, I am more interested in populating those worlds with
actual plans, than I am with reasoning, and then tracking how well
they match to reality. (03)
JFS>> Most of the plans we develop or use aren't in those worlds.
>> They're in the world we live in (or in our computers, which are
>> also in our world), but they refer to hypothetical things in those
>> worlds. (04)
[MW] I have a different take. The plan is for a world like ours but not
the same one, and they refer to real things (not hypothetical) in those
worlds. (05)
I'll accept the basic idea. But it does raise questions about how
real things in our world could also exist in some hypothetical world.
One answer to those questions leads to the idea of "counterparts" in
the hypothetical world. (06)
In any case, I think it's better to quit on a note of agreement. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|