Joao Leao wrote:
> Your Principles are correct but the wording is not:
> you should change all your use of *possible* to 'contingent'
> and qualify as 'possible' instead all the invocations of 'world'
> not qualified with *actual*. This because possible/actual is
> a distinction that applies to worlds while necessary/contingent
> applies to propositions...
>
> -Joao
>
> scerir wrote:
>
> > Federico:
> > > I'm agree that informations are always subjective, but a physical or
> > > matematical model should not be too. And perhaps the paradox I propose
> > > is a four-order one. The problem in fact is that all the conclusions
> > > we could think are consequence of the hypotesis of applying the
> > > physical and matematical system. But if they were wrong, the
> > > conclusions would be wrong, too.
> >
> > Principles of World Theory say, more or less, that:
> > - a proposition (whatever) is *necessary* iff it is true in all worlds;
> > - a proposition (whatever) is *possible* iff there is some world in which
> > it is true;
> > - there is only one *actual* world;
> > - there are propositions which are true at the *actual* world;
> > - there are propositions which are not true at the *actual* world, but
> > they are true at some *non-actual* *possible* world.
> >
> > It is not much. But, in any case, we must start from these points :-)
>
> --
>
> Joao Pedro Leao ::: jleao.domain.name.hidden
> Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
> 1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
> Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
> VoIP Phone: (617)=384-6679
> Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
> ----------------------------------------------
> "All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"
> -------------------------------------------------------
--
Joao Pedro Leao ::: jleao.domain.name.hidden
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
1815 Massachussetts Av. , Cambridge MA 02140
Work Phone: (617)-496-7990 extension 124
VoIP Phone: (617)=384-6679
Cell-Phone: (617)-817-1800
----------------------------------------------
"All generalizations are abusive (specially this one!)"
-------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thu Oct 30 2003 - 11:24:57 PST