frank

Exactly!

yep

Normal is a bullseye no dart ever hits.

Sometimes trolls try really hard to get you to respond to them. Toxic stuff.

:up:

It's probably a collision of possible worlds.

I like that. That allows the logician to add on any ontology she likes, or just be anti-metaphysical.

Is there a problem with calling them possible worlds?

They were just trying to scare you.

That's the Catholic view: There is no one Christian tradition. It's all over the place.

:up:

It's normal to be abnormal.

We all use modal logic pretty regularly. This was just an effort to understand modal expressions extensionally. It seems to work pretty well. Obviousl...

:grimace: I didn't see that coming!

:lol:

I'm not sure how popular Lewis' view is. It's kind of nutty.

All ancient civilizations exhibited religious tolerance (except the Jews). If you traveled to another region of the known world, your first task was t...

Which do you think is closer to approximating the way we really think about modality?

Benedict was Italian. :cool:

I think it's because Rome was repeatedly sodomized by its enemies until it laid down and died.

True, although isn't there an extra conundrum with direct realism: that if it's true, then it must be false (by virtue of what we observe about how th...

In the 9th Century, if you wanted to see a library, a school, some sort of hospital, you'd need to go to the local monastery. The monastery was built ...

I'm skipping over some of the exploration of Lewis' theory to answer the obvious question: "Is Lewis serious?" The answer is: yes. As a science fictio...

Something like that. But we still think in terms of possibility.

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool determinist, by which I mean it's embedded in the way I see the world, morality, the way I assess my own past. Fate, basically....

So except for RussellA's last question here, we're ready to move on to section 2, right? 2. Three Philosophical Conceptions of Possible Worlds

So maybe you'd favor a plan that splits resources between improving access and doing medical research, recognizing that research is expensive up front...

Dude. I could resurrect Frege and transport him to your house to explain to you what an abstract object is and you still would maintain some other bal...

No, it doesn't.

:up:

I bought some cans of mackerel just in case the volcano blows. That is the stinkiest fish on the planet.

All hail the Golden Dawn

This wouldn't be a problem for first order logic. When your concept of a swan changes, the interpretation in your model changes. No biggie.

Chomsky says physicalism's first transformation was Newton and the idea of a force. In fact, Newton was accused by his contemporaries of importing woo...

I think the same sorts of questions could be asked about ordinary language use. If Paul talks about x, what guarantees that Paul knows what his words ...

Would you want to dumb that down a tad?

So survival of the fittest?

I think so.

I think Kripke would say the value of pi is necessarily 3.14..., but this is known a posteriori.

What do you mean by "logically true"?

I'll ask @"Banno" to weigh in on that because I thought I already answered it. :smile:

Yes, a definition of "true" is provided. I didn't say it was a personal thing. I said the matching of members of the domain and predicates is part of ...

Here's a block of text from the SEP :grin:

I think the simple answer is that it doesn't. You have to provide that. You build a model with a domain and predicates. You have to know what the thin...

Minerals makes sense. Not oil.

Got it, thanks.

So are intension and interpretation the same thing?

I think all of this is correct.

At this point, if I were to try to summarize your view back to you, I wouldn't know what to say. I have no idea what you're trying to express.

1.3 Two Applications: The Analysis of Intensions and the De Re / De Dicto Distinction @"Banno" I was wondering if you could give an example of what th...