ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 18:00:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <56000.70.110.17.10.1311199213.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On 20-Jul-11 12:36 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
> The possible worlds make good examples of ontological intangibles.
> The notion of possible worlds is as old as ontology itself, remember the
> potentiality-actuality dichotomy (as force and energy).
> It's two narrow to
> connect it to the modern thinkers, like Lewis or Kripke, who were mostly
> involved with the logical interpretations of possibility, necessity and
> contingency, defining the modal status of propositions in terms
> possible or
> actual worlds; like if the proposition is true or false, necessary or
> contingent, possible or impossible.    (01)

> The ontological status, the nature of possible worlds, this is what
> mostly critical here, as the grand issue: ...    (02)

We can ontologize a possible world as a context, or in Cyc terms, a
"microtheory".  By treating the world as an object, assertions can be
made (in a different context) about that world, such as the properties
discussed in the following sentence.    (03)

> Besides, we need to distinguish the possible worlds as conceivable,
> imaginable, mental or fictional universes FROM the worlds capable of
> exisisting or happening, where the actual world is just one of the many
> possible worlds.    (04)

> When somebody states that all the possible world are as real as the
> actual world, he is reasoning on the ontology of possibility.    (05)

Such arguments don't have much to do with the issues of creating
and dealing with computerized ontologies for "real world" purposes.    (06)

-- doug f    (07)

> As much as when
> somebody states that all that exists is made of multiverses, each with
> specific physical constraints, as multiple possible universes, parallel
> universes, "alternative universes", "quantum universes",
> "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds",
> "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", "dimensional planes,"
> and what not.
> To my mind, alternative realities are as real as alternative energy,
> and we are capable to create it as a smart sustainable world:
> http://www.eis.com.cy. All what we need - to discover the ontological
> mechanisms of possible worlds :-)
>
> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 12:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassifications
> are fuzzy)
>
>
> On Jul 19, 2011, at 3:17 AM, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> Dear Matthew,
>>
>> The point I'm trying to make is that possible worlds don't exist.  They
>> are imaginary.
>
> That is a perfectly reasonable philosophical opinion, but it is not an
> argument.  Realists about possible worlds argue that they most certainly do
> exist.  They might be wrong, but you can't refute them just by asserting
> that they are.
>
>> The way you imagine them is to create some hypothesis, theory, axioms, or
>> specifications that generate them.
>
> Isn't that true of most any theoretical entity?  Quarks?  Strings?  Sets?
>
>> In short, the starting  hypothesis is intensional.
>
> Not for possible worlds understood  la Lewis.
>
>> The possible worlds are useless baggage.  They might give you some
>> pleasure in your imagination.  They might even be useful as illustrations.
>
> Your reasoning is much too facile. Lewis has provided very powerful
> theoretical arguments for realism about possible worlds (as he understands
> them).  In a nutshell, he shows (very cleverly) how a variety of
> philosophical and semantical problems can be solved in terms of possible
> worlds. He then argues that belief in worlds is justified so long as there
> is a theory that has similar explanatory value without the ontological
cost.
> It's a very difficult argument to refute.
>
>> But the method of forming the initial specification for the worlds is
>> intensional.
>
> Not on Lewis's approach.
>
> -chris    (08)




=============================================================
doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org    (09)

"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================    (010)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (011)

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