[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2011 19:50:20 +0300
Message-id: <20110731195020.7391789k4ej48qfg.astyrman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,    (01)

what is the practical difference in applying Dunn's approach vs.  
applying Kripke's approach? Suppose that you are implementing a chess  
program. You have a repository where are all the possible games, all  
the possible sequences of the discrete steps that can be taken in  
chess. Now, how do I apply D here, and how do I apply K here? What's  
the difference?    (02)

-Avril    (03)

PS:    (04)

As you know, these dichotomies all mean the same:    (05)

Form - Matter
Universal - Particular
Type - Token    (06)

but they are different from these:    (07)

Concrete - Abstract
Not mental but exists - Mental    (08)

I don't see any confusion in the dichotomy to concrete/not mental and  
abstract/mental. As an ontological realist, I believe that all mental  
objects are situated somewhere inside the sculls of thinking  
creatures, and the thinking creatures are spatially separated. No  
confusion here either. All abstract things are intangible, and all  
intangible things are abstract. Or I can't come up with an example of  
an intangible thing that is not abstract.    (09)

This thread has taught that it's better to use the term "possible  
totality state of affairs" than "possible world". That's a valuable  
lesson. As an example of how the "other-worldly" thinking confuses  
stuff is that if the imaginable necessarily inaccessible worlds are  
considered to exist in the concrete sense, following Lewis, then these  
are concrete but also intangible to us. This is also an example case  
where the principle of economical understandability PEU can be used:  
1) this-worldly theories are enough for all needs even in principle;  
2) the other-worldly stuff does no good but does harm by confusing  
people at best; 3) the useful features of the other-worldly theories  
can be formulated in terms of this-worldly theories. PEU favours  
this-worldly theories over the other-worldly theories.    (010)

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    (011)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>