To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Chris Menzel <chris.menzel@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:35:17 -0500 |
Message-id: | <CAO_JD6MJo8vU1ZtUqx8cQWXNEQOw3N7jYPS5iJK2C7WjGaM_kw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Ed Barkmeyer <edbark@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm afraid that, for the first time I can recall, I have to disagree with Ed here. For there is absolutely no reason why the elements of a semantical model of a logical language (including most any KR language) cannot be exactly the entities we "intend". Indeed, such "intended" models are typically exactly what we wish to be talking about when we use the language in question: The natural, intended model of the language of arithmetic contains the natural numbers; the natural model of an ontology for a manufacturing system might well contain exactly the actual machines on the assembly line. Furthermore, I must say that I am not sure what Ed means when he says that models are "intrinsically intensional" or that they are "constructed from intensions". In the theory of models for logical languages, this is just not the case; the notion of an intrinsically intensional entity is simply not a part of the theory. Moreover, I am not sure we've got enough of a grip on the notion of an intensional entity beyond the idea that that distinct intensions can have the same extensions. This is represented in possible world semantics by defining extensions as functions from worlds to extensional entities of one sort or another. It is represented in the semantics of Common Logic simply by distinguishing between semantic objects and their extensions, but there is not much more to be said about the nature of intensions than that — formally, at any rate.
So, while I think the distinction between intension and extension is certainly legitimate, I am skeptical of their introduction into the modeling domain in any sense beyond the well-understood (and ultimately extensional, from a purely formal perspective) representations found in possible world semantics or Common Logic.
-chris _________________________________________________________________ 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) |
Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] URIs [was: Truth], Ed Barkmeyer |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] URIs [was: Truth], Steve Ray |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] The class of the planet Venus, Ed Barkmeyer |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] The class of the planet Venus, Ed Barkmeyer |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |