[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fu

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2011 19:48:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <1528eff787e8bc1c7119fbc83c41a8ab.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Possible worlds don't exist.  This  world is all we have.

> I have used the notio0n of "possible world" to include *any* possible
> world,
> whether hypothetical, counterfactual, future projection, part of a belief
> system, etc., as well as possible actual physical universes (in a
> multiverse) other than our own that really exist. It's a useful notion.

To avoid confusion, I recommend the following terminology:

   'possible world'  =>  'model of a possible way the world could be'

This transformation clarifies the ontological status.  But it's usually better to use a term like 'context' that bypasses the confusions.


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)

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