[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 01:33:37 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <5553c790fb400d32ab88561eef538c0c.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Doug and Chris M:

I agree with the point by Doug F:

> ... that does not mean that the worlds affect us, merely our consideration of them.

Precisely.  The only thing you can get out of considering those worlds is just what you  put into the thought that imagined them.

In other words, whatever meaning you derive from those worlds comes from the intensional information you put in.  The so-called extension is completely determined by the intension.

If you find possible worlds useful as heuristics that stimulate the imagination, I have no objection.  But don't pretend that you have discovered any more information from them than you put into imagining them. 

Note to Chris M:  I believe that this same conclusion applies to the writings by David Lewis.  His so-called extensions were derived from his intensional specifications of those worlds.

In Dunn's terminology, the laws that determine whatever modality lurks in Lewis's worlds come from his own imagination in conjuring them up.


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>