[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 08:35:45 -0400 (EDT)
Message-id: <98711e85df915d983d8ae15f65056454.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear Matthew,

It seems that you are using Dunn's semantics:

> Possible worlds gives me a mechanism for keeping my alternative plans separate, and to keep plans separate from reality. It is the facts of these plans that are important to me, and having each set of facts as a coherent whole. I don?t see how different approaches to the rules even has an impact on these things.

That's fine.  But note that you are specifying these worlds by a set of laws (plans) and a set of facts.  That is an excellent example of Dunn's approach:  use the term 'possible world' as a metaphor for whatever is specified by those laws and facts.


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>