Dear John, (01)
> Dear Matthew,
>
> > JFS: But any information about the future that "seems" to come from
> > an extensional analysis of some 4D region is always derivable
> > from the intensional specifications that determine or predict
> > those possible worlds (or those spatio-temporal regions).
>
> > MW: Yes, and any information about the future that "seems" to arise from
> > intensional specifications is actually a possible world or some part of
one.
>
> I'm happy with the word "yes", and I'd like to stop at that point. (02)
MW: I'm sure you would. However, the fact is that modal realism is an
alternative approach to modality to the one you take. That much the same
things can be achieved with either confirms that. So your saying that you
can do the same things is not a reason to choose your approach.
>
> But using the word "actually" with possible worlds seems to suggest
> that they're actual. If you want to use them as a Gedanken experiment
> or heuristic to stimulate the imagination, I can't complain. But I
> would claim that they can always be eliminated. (03)
MW: I've said before I make no commitment to the reality or otherwise of
possible worlds, it makes no difference to their utility, and as far as I
can see there is no way to prove it one way or another. Lewis obviously
considered they were "really real". I only claim they exist because I have
made an ontological commitment to them, so I can talk about them.
>
> > MW: Well I spent 30 years working for Shell, an organization that lived
and
> > thrived by creating plans and then executing them. My usage is just how
I
> > found the word being used there.
>
> I have some doubts about the last sentence. People can work together
> successfully for 30 years and have surprisingly different thoughts
> about their subject when you start probing (along the lines we have
> been doing in this thread).
>
> I would really like to see a quotation from some report at Shell
> that supports the claim "just how I found the word being used there". (04)
MW: That is really quite insulting. I am perfectly aware that different
people use words differently. It is because this was recognized in Shell and
worked on - because planning is so important - that I am confident of the
usage. Attached is a diagram from training material used to make sure the
language was being used in the same way to disambiguate terms like strategy,
plan, mission, vision, objectives and policy. It dates originally from the
late '80s, so the quality is a bit iffy.
>
> > MW: I've spent enough of my working life doing planning that I know full
> > well that you have not produced a plan that anyone will accept as such
when
> > you have done no more than state the boundary conditions. Only when you
have
> > produced a solution that satisfies those boundary conditions do you have
> > something a budget holder would sign of as a plan.
>
> I agree. But the method of deriving the intermediate steps develops
> a partially ordered set of subgoals. A PERT chart, for example, shows
> all the steps and subgoals. (05)
MW: Indeed, it is a popular method for constructing a plan. (06)
> When you get to the lowest level details,
> there is almost no difference between an imperative command (action
> type) and a precondition-postcondition declaration. You can have
> a one-to-one correspondence. (07)
MW: But they are not the same. The action type does not have a particular
date attached to it, so it is a method and not a plan. In a PERT chart the
actions do have particular start and end dates, so it only refers to a
particular execution of an activity type with particular resources. (08)
MW: It is a classic type/instance confusion, which our use of language does
so much to encourage. (09)
Regards (010)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (011)
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. (012)
>
> John
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (013)
Plan.jpg
Description: JPEG image
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|
