[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 07:34:18 +0100
Message-id: <4e33a5ec.533ce30a.0ce9.ffff8429@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Dear John,


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)

MW: I don’t see how a plan is a set of laws. A plan is a set of actions (i.e. spatio-temporal extents, not laws).

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.





Matthew West                           

Information  Junction

Tel: +44 1489 880185

Mobile: +44 750 3385279

Skype: dr.matthew.west





This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.

Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.



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>