On Jul 22, 2011, at 10:33 PM, sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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. (01)
I don't have any idea what you mean by his "intensional specications of
worlds". Could you given an example? (02)
> In Dunn's terminology, the laws that determine whatever modality lurks in
>Lewis's worlds come from his own imagination in conjuring them up. (03)
Lewis would dispute the claim that he is conjuring them up. He provides
principles (notably his principle of Recombination) that entail their existence
and that have no more to do with conjuring than the set theoretic principles of
pairing and infinity. (04)
-chris (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)
|