[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2011 03:41:01 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <218b04d0a4d2e3cf65ea36741ecb67b1.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


You have to make a distinction between 'possible world' and 'possible world accessible from the actual world'.

In Kripke semantics, there is no limitation whatever on what a possible world might be.

The criterion you cited is one of many, many suggestions for what it might mean for some possible world to be accessible from the actual world.

For any particular application, philosophers want something much more restricted.  For example, somebody who is interested in politics might ask "What would the world be like today if Jerry Ford had been elected president in 1976 instead of Jimmy Carter."

In any case, note that you don't need the term 'possible world' in order to discuss that question.  You just refer to "the world".

That leads to my preferred way of talking:  replace every occurrence of the term 'possible world' with 'how the world would be if ...'.


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>