[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2011 19:20:48 -0500
Message-id: <DF268C18-50A6-4A8F-B2A0-AECCFF14E464@xxxxxxxx>
On Aug 5, 2011, at 11:04 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> John,
> An engineering model is in no way even remotely similar to a possible world.    (01)

Now there is something we can agree on.    (02)

> A possible world is, for the most part, a fantasy of what might possibly 
>happen,    (03)

Well, it was fun while it lasted. There are many different philosophical 
theories of possible worlds, on most of which they are definitely not fantasies 
-- although there is a *fictionalist* view of possible worlds that might 
plausibly give some substance to your "fantasy" idea. But, really, there is a 
vast literature here, so it's a bit naive just to baldly assert that a possible 
world is or is not this or that, as if it were a fixed, clear, and settled 
matter.    (04)

-chris    (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)

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