tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3049258033565653738.post1317317251013721621..comments2024-01-11T03:24:27.151-08:00Comments on Biosimilarity: Collectivity and inten(s/t)ionleithaushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01069099703796397027noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3049258033565653738.post-27171073515993746382008-04-22T10:29:00.000-07:002008-04-22T10:29:00.000-07:00Very funny! The whole point is -- of course -- the...Very funny! The whole point is -- of course -- the proposal that the meaning of the extension is the formula that picks it out.<BR/><BR/>Now, the reason that 2 & 3 are important is that you need to be able to 'go meta' to talk about that meaning. The facility of 2 & 3 are exhibited to show that we can use the process as is to climb up to the meta level.leithaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01069099703796397027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3049258033565653738.post-1350798249530797012008-04-21T14:50:00.000-07:002008-04-21T14:50:00.000-07:00Well 2 and 3 are all very well but 1 is where you ...Well 2 and 3 are all very well but 1 is where you may get traction. For any given HM property P, and any single observer (process?), there exists a set of processes observed to realize P. Now you get social groups but they are only 'objects' if everyone can agree on what property they realize ;-)alexishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12281522589184676541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3049258033565653738.post-80228312576759439822008-04-19T21:19:00.000-07:002008-04-19T21:19:00.000-07:00Alexis,Excellent comment. Actually, we get this so...Alexis,<BR/><BR/>Excellent comment. Actually, we get this sort of dynamism when we apply the procedure in the following ways.<BR/>1. Our term language includes behavior. As i pointed out, this is a generalization of the process by which we get spatial logic. Thus, our term language can be processes. Thus, we can get properties of processes -- including extensions in time. i have discovered that the Hennessy-Milner trick of treating actions as modalities can be generalized by the Sewell-Milner-Leifer trick of labeling transitions with contexts. This allows us to use contexts as modalities which in turn allows us to express dynamic properties and properties with dynamic extension.<BR/>2. We recognize that the process is iterable -- the logic is also a term language through which we can pull collectivity.<BR/>3. We can also model the process of agents uttering (in a language like one of these logics) across scale. boundaries.leithaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01069099703796397027noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3049258033565653738.post-91156229971410979342008-04-18T04:04:00.000-07:002008-04-18T04:04:00.000-07:00I don't think this makes sense. Social groups hav...I don't think this makes sense. Social groups have a dynamic extension and so any intension should be dynamic too. I don't think there is a property as such. There may be family resemblances within vague groupings such as "liberal". Are you suggesting that a process can stand in place of a property and be used to represent dynamic social intention, intension, and extension?alexishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12281522589184676541noreply@blogger.com