----- Original Message ----- From: Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Alastair Malcolm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <everything-list@eskimo.com> Sent: 11 January 2005 14:47 Subject: Re: Belief Statements > I certainly agree. Now the problem is that there are many logics, and so > there are many notion or "logical possibility".
It sounds like we may be using 'logics' for two different purposes. For me, basic logic is intended here (that of syllogisms and 'if it is true that p, then it cannot be the case that p is false'); any ambiguities between logics in directly describing a (physical-type) world would tend to be due to their particular application areas (for example temporal logic would not be geared to worlds with certain alternatives to time); others tend not to have this use at all (for example modal logic is more about consistency/proveability/necessity, or worlds in general). Again, in the same vein as my reply to Hal F, if a logic / formal system cannot describe an entity, it is either due to an inherent restriction (compared to other logics / formal systems), or else the entity is totally beyond our comprehension (in a formal sense). > The choice of the logic (or logicS) will depend on some basic assumptions. . . . >If you read the papers I am referring too, don't hesitate to ask questions. Is it still the case that the best english version of the relevant ideas are from your earlier posts to this list, as identified in your URL? I shall try to look at them at some stage. Alastair