On 8/6/2011 7:25 PM, Richard Vines wrote:
> In this discussion crossing over ontology and epistemic logic (and
> modalities), I am not sure why there is no reference to the nature of
> “evolutionary possibility”.
>
> For me, there is a need to explicitly take into account a temporal
> component to this analysis …. that different types of knowledge emerge
> through time.
>
> I have puzzled over these matters for some time and made a first attempt
> to link them in section 1.3 of first part of this paper
> <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1764605> (the
> overarching topic being about regulatory systems not epistemology or
> ontology). In thinking about this notion of “evolutionary possibility”,
> I was interested in exploring whether there might be merit in exploring
> a synthesis between Pierce, Popper (and his idea of “evolutionary
> epistemology”) Wittgenstein and Peter Munz. (01)
Thanks for the reference to your paper. It discusses many important
issues that we have not addressed in this (or other threads), and
I would recommend it to readers of this list. (02)
To answer your first question -- "why there is no reference to the
nature of evolutionary possibility" -- the answer is simple: it is
a huge topic that is far more complex than the technical issue about
the relationship of Dunn's semantics to Kripke's semantics. (03)
If anyone wants to delve into these issues, please read Richard V's
paper and post some questions and/or comments about it. (04)
John (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)
|