[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 19:05:44 +0300
Message-id: <20110722190544.21283w0x986cjahk.astyrman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Matthew,    (01)

my point is that modality gets easily very complex, and in order to  
keep it understandable, we can commit to some naming conventions. The  
first and the most obvious convention is that this world -let's call  
it Universe- is the only world that exists in the concrete sense.  
Everything that exists is a part of Universe, and every part of  
universe is accessible to every other part of Universe, directly, or  
through other parts of Universe. Even infinite chains of accessibility  
are allowed.    (02)

Now, you can say that there might be other worlds that exist in the  
concrete sense and are necessarily inaccessible to all parts of  
Universe. But that is against the above naming convention. Although  
other worlds could exist, the only utility of them for us is to  
acknowledge that they could exist, and immediately after that commit  
to the above naming convention.    (03)

I don't seen any better starting points to modality, can you?    (04)

-Avril    (05)

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    (06)

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