[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:49:00 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <1b4d1ea8ff56467741f38c3cd940a631.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


We agree on the formalism.  I agree that Lewis's metaphor of possible worlds had some stimulating influence on the imagination.  The question is whether there is any conclusion derivable from  Lewis's worlds that cannot be derived equally well from Dunn's laws and facts.

> Dunn came up with a formal semantics for modal
> languages equivalent to Kripke's. It can be used for the same sorts of
> formal purposes that Kripke semantics can be used for ? proving soundness
> and completeness results, proving the consistency of certain modal
> principles, etc. Dunn did NOT provide (nor did he purport to provide)
> alternatives to the solutions to numerous problems in semantics,
> philosophy of language, metaphysics, philosophy of mind etc that Lewis
> propounded in terms of worlds.

Could you please give one example of a problem that can be solved by Lewis's approach,  but not by Dunn's laws and facts.


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>