Lainaus sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx: (01)
JS
> 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)
|