To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx |
Date: | Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:02:36 -0400 (EDT) |
Message-id: | <954b017be1b73f9114a7696d8d078b0f.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Chris, I'm delighted to hear that: Fortunately, Micheal Dunn showed that any conclusion or explanation that could be derived from talk about possible worlds can be derived in an exactly equivalent way without assuming the existence of possible worlds. Just replace each world w with the set F of propositions that are true about w (facts of w) and a subset L of F called the laws of w. Every argument that can be stated in terms of w can be rephrased in terms of the pair (L,F) without any loss or distortion. 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), sowa |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Jerry Hobbs |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Christopher Menzel |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fuzzy), Jerry Hobbs |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |