[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:30:48 +0300
Message-id: <20110723103048.13855v0p0jmcos6g.astyrman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Lainaus sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx:    (01)

> As far as
> metaphysics goes, I believe that Dunn's method is far more fruitful and
> clearer than anything I've read in Lewis's writings. I tried to discuss
> some of those issues in my worlds.pdf and laws.htm
> articles.    (02)

Could you bunch up the discussion by defining the meaning of  
"possible" in the best way that you can.    (03)

The best definition I've found is combinatorialism: that what is  
actual tomorrow is some recombination of the elements of the actual  
world today. But, when it is supposed that Universe is not 100%  
deterministic, only one member of the collection of all  
combinatorially possible worlds of tomorrow will be actual tomorrow.  
This has the advantage that the collection of possible worlds does not  
have to be equated with the collection of logically possible worlds.    (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>