|Date:||Sat, 25 May 2013 00:10:15 +0900|
On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 11:14 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Matthew and Rob,
As a foundation for modal logic, I prefer Dunn's semantics, which
RR: Traffic laws are a different sense of 'laws'. They are social constructions, and therefore arbitrary (if only to a degree) and fiat. This distinguishes them from natural/physical laws of nature. I would not put them in the same box.
On social constructs in general, work by J.Searle might be of interest to some here.
RR: I'm inclined to consider natural laws/principles in a similar manner.
RR: John, have you accumulated primary sources of scientists explicitly stating that? That they believe laws are real. Although I've read works by some, I would like to see many more.
A predicate in predicate calculus is ontologically neutral. Nominalists
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Spatial Extent of Abstract Entities?, John F Sowa|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Spatial Extent of Abstract Entities?, Matthew West|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Spatial Extent of Abstract Entities?, John F Sowa|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Spatial Extent of Abstract Entities?, Matthew West|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|