F-447D-94E3-B8
6A4C6C207B@xxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <76AAF8DF-E16F-447D-94E3-B86A4C6C207B@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 19:38:59 -0000
Message-ID: <005601c98c80$62cec3b0$286c4b10$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
thread-index: AcmMfdF5aOFnhDeCT8+kFG9fAKOqlAAAUpiA
Content-Language: en-gb (01)
ChrisM, (02)
> > There is debate about whether sets are abstract - David Lewis asks
> > why we cannot say the set of cars in the car park is located in the
> > car park -
>
> Are you sure Lewis asked that?
> (03)
Not the example, that is mine, mea culpa (laziness on my part - cannot be
bothered to stretch over to the bookcase and look it up). The point is made
in the Plurality of Worlds. He was quite clear that he found arguments
claiming that sets were NOT concrete did not make sense to him. If you have
problems finding it (it should be in the index) I'll get the reference for
you. Maybe I should look anyway to get the right example. (04)
ChrisP (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|