|Abstract||This is Part I of a two-part essay introducing case-intensional first-order logic (CIFOL), an easy-to-use, uniform, powerful, and useful combination of first order logic with modal logic resulting from philosophical and technical modifications of Bressan’s General interpreted modal calculus (Yale University Press 1972). CIFOL starts with a set of cases; each expression has an extension in each case and an intension, which is the function from the cases to the respective case-relative extensions. Predication is intensional; identity is extensional. Definite descriptions are context-independent terms, and lambda-predicates and -operators can be introduced without constraints. These logical resources allow one to define, within CIFOL, important properties of properties, viz., extensionality (whether the property applies, depends only on an extension in one case) and absoluteness, Bressan’s chief innovation that allows tracing an individual across cases without recourse to any notion of “rigid designation” or “trans-world identity.” Thereby CIFOL abstains from incorporating any metaphysical principles into the quantificational machinery, unlike extant frameworks of quantified modal logic. We claim that this neutrality makes CIFOL a useful tool for discussing both metaphysical and scientific arguments involving modality and quantification, and we illustrate by discussing in diagrammatic detail a number of such arguments involving the extensional identification of individuals via absolute (substance) properties, essential properties, de re vs. de dicto, and the results of possible tests|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Nuel Belnap & Thomas Müller (2013). BH-CIFOL: Case-Intensional First Order Logic. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-32.
Edward N. Zalta (1997). The Modal Object Calculus and its Interpretation. In M. de Rijke (ed.), Advances in Intensional Logic. Kluwer.
E. H. Alves & J. A. D. Guerzoni (1990). Extending Montague's System: A Three Valued Intensional Logic. Studia Logica 49 (1):127 - 132.
Thomas Ede Zimmermann (1993). Scopeless Quantifiers and Operators. Journal of Philosophical Logic 22 (5):545 - 561.
Daniel Gallin (1975). Intensional and Higher-Order Modal Logic: With Applications to Montague Semantics. American Elsevier Pub. Co..
George Bealer (1983). Completeness in the Theory of Properties, Relations, and Propositions. Journal of Symbolic Logic 48 (2):415-426.
George Bealer (1979). Theories of Properties, Relations, and Propositions. Journal of Philosophy 76 (11):634-648.
Bjørn Jespersen & Pavel Materna (2002). Are Wooden Tables Necessarily Wooden? Acta Analytica 17 (1):115-150.
Edward N. Zalta (1988). A Comparison of Two Intensional Logics. Linguistics and Philosophy 11 (1):59-89.
V. Halbach & P. Welch (2009). Necessities and Necessary Truths: A Prolegomenon to the Use of Modal Logic in the Analysis of Intensional Notions. Mind 118 (469):71-100.
O. Bradley Bassler (1998). Leibniz on Intension, Extension, and the Representation of Syllogistic Inference. Synthese 116 (2):117-139.
Carlos Areces, Patrick Blackburn, Antonia Huertas & María Manzano (forthcoming). Completeness in Hybrid Type Theory. Journal of Philosophical Logic:1-30.
Matt Fairtlough & Michael Mendler (2003). Intensional Completeness in an Extension of Gödel/Dummett Logic. Studia Logica 73 (1):51 - 80.
Added to index2012-10-18
Total downloads2 ( #246,081 of 722,839 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,917 of 722,839 )
How can I increase my downloads?