On 25 Feb 2014, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/25/2014 7:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
admitting simply that indexical notion are modal notion, and thus
don't need to obey to Leibniz identity rule.
I don't understand that remark. Are you saying that there is some
modal notion that makes identity of indiscernibles wrong? I think
of indexical predicates as being ostensive.
I am saying that here:
W = H
M = H
But only in the 3-1 view it make sense (locally) to say that M = W. In
the 1-view M ≠ W.
yet, in the 1-view, W = H, and M = H.
There is nothing paradoxal. It comes from the fact that we agree
surviving in both place, but are aware we can see only one of them,
from the 1p view.
Now, provability, and even more provability-&-truth provide
intensional predicates, their numerical extension have a secondary role.
From []A, and A <-> B, it does not follow that []B. You need [](A <->
B).
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
