There's no space for a compromise. I'm engaged in giving the standard account of how modal logic and possible world semantics function. You are up the...
The direction of this is ok, I think, but the detail... again, it's intricate. As I explained above, “swans” are {waterfowls, flighted, white} is an i...
's confusion comes from collapsing two very different discussions: The model-theoretic discussion: In possible-world semantics, the “actual world” is ...
This is problematic. See my comments about existential quantification and domains, above. If we set up a domain that includes Frosty, then we can use ...
Notice that swan, frog, book, tree and so on are kinds, not individuals. The analysis of kinds differs from the analysis of individuals. For kinds, we...
Things have gone a bit astray, as well as awry. I'm going to step away from the text for a bit, and consider what logic does. Logic is about what we c...
All I did was point to the difference between metaphysics and modality. And this is not my account. The account here is the standard account of logici...
Well, maybe. More often formal logic is treated as a branch of maths, seen as grounding set theory and so the whole edifice. Whether this is correct r...
No. In modal logic there is a difference between the actual world and other possible words. It's that the actual world is w? and the world at which ac...
Not sure what "logical truth is here - but the value of pi is presumably the same in all possible worlds, and so a necessary truth. And the case is si...
Yes, that's it. except perhaps for some expressions that are true in every possible world. It's not exactly personal preference, more agreed backgroun...
Well, I'll say "almost" and point out that Nussbaum, perhaps the foremost ethicist here, is a classicist authority on Aristotle, so let's call it "flo...
Not really. The interpretation is the link between all the things and predicates at a world, while the intension kinda goes in the other direction, as...
We are verging on some interesting recent stuff here. There's an argument from David Chalmers that the sort of account given above is problematic in t...
Whatever you are saying here is very unclear to me. In order to carry the case that "trans women are women" is always false, Phim has show that we oug...
We used this form previously, twice. First, in discussing Tarski's semantics, were a 0-tuple predication was seen to be a proposition, a 1-tuple predi...
A pathetic response. spoken by you, is about you. "Nixon might not have one the election" is about Nixon, not some other non-physical...whatever That ...
Yep. But first let's go back and note this bit: Menzel treats of the different senses of "intensional" very clearly, however he has no choice but to u...
Yep. English and Germanic language might lend themselves to these formalisations, perhaps, which is not a surprise since the formalities were mostly d...
:up: :wink: It's hard to grasp the counterarguments here, but perhaps they do think in terms of "an irreducibly intensional element in the meanings of...
Let's try for clarrity, again. As I explained previously, in the SEP article, extension has a narrowly defined, technical meaning: The extension of a ...
Forcing someone to have an operation looks to me to be very far from maximising their potential. Here's a sample list of capabilities, from Nussbaum: ...
Do I? These are both Nixon. The Nixon who did not get elected is not a different Nixon to the one who was. They are the very same fellow, but under di...
You are perhaps intent on using "first lets define our terms" in order to avoid setting out the argument. Lets' use the definition of knowledge in the...
The one were you repeatedly conflated metaphysics and semantics? I remember it well. You are making the same mistake here. We can plainly talk about w...
:up: It is a change, though. And this certainly will not help: US plans to order foreign tourists, including Australians, to disclose social media his...
Interesting. There's a difference between characterising a thing and referring to it. There was a lively discussion about this in the middle of the la...
Other folk might not care about your opinion, but presumably you do. And if your aim is to decide what you ought do, then who's opinion will you trust...
Why would I need to? Here's another phrase, prominent in the disability community, and promoted, if perhaps not coined by a very dear friend: If they ...
You muddled your scope. De dicto and de re. Twaddle. Both sentences are about Nixon. The same Nixon in two different worlds, each of which is evaluate...
You are conflating the epistemic notion of ‘judging’ with the metaphysical or semantic notion of truth. Truth doesn’t require anyone to make a judgmen...
"The world is all that is the case" :lol: No, he meant "all that is the case". Empirical, non-empirical, objective, subjective... It's almost a tautol...
Comments