[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Thing and Class

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Chris Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 12:45:58 -0500 (CDT)
Message-id: <alpine.OSX.1.00.0809161238220.2480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, 16 Sep 2008, Pat Hayes wrote:
> [John wrote:]
>> We have argued about that point before, and logicians and
>> philosophers have taken many different positions on it.
> Actually there seems to be a fairly robust and widely accepted
> consensus that semantic structures can be parts of reality.
>> Although I do not believe that the real world *is* a model,
>> it is at least conceivable that some people might make that
>> claim.
> It is simply true that many people have made that claim: or more
> often, made that assumption, taking it as obvious.    (01)

>From an earlier post, it might look like Pat and I disagree about this,
but I don't think we do.  I believe that all Pat is saying is that
Tarski-style models can be constructed out of real world objects and
(extensions of) real world relations in such a way that, as far as they
go, they directly represent reality as it is; they don't just contain
"formal surrogates" of real world objects or the like (as I recall John
putting it once).  But, given that a Tarski-style model (in contemporary
model theory) is *literally* an n-tuple of a certain sort, I think Pat
would agree that they are not *literally* parts of (physical) reality
but rather structurally very accurate representations of reality.    (02)

-chris    (03)

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    (04)

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