To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Tue, 19 Jul 2011 06:17:14 -0400 (EDT) |
Message-id: | <cc225c69a1e9428178de0583da286832.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Dear Matthew, The point I'm trying to make is that possible worlds don't exist. They are imaginary. The way you imagine them is to create some hypothesis, theory, axioms, or specifications that generate them. The so-called extensional methods are superfluous. Whatever hypothesis you formed to generate the possible worlds contains all the information necessary to derive whatever conclusion you could get by analyzing the set of worlds. In short, the starting hypothesis is intensional. The possible worlds are useless baggage. They might give you some pleasure in your imagination. They might even be useful as illustrations. But the method of forming the initial specification for the worlds is intensional. John _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Matthew West |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), sowa |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Matthew West |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Matthew West |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |