this helps me a bit: “Montague’s semantic analyses were given in terms of a type-logical hierarchy whose basic ingredients were truth values, possible individuals, and possible worlds. While the exact nature of individuals and worlds depends on the (arbitrary) choice of a particular model (or ‘Fregean interpretation’), the truth values 1 (true) and 0 (false) transcend the class of all models, thus emphasizing their status as logical objects.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/#Pra

this helps me a bit:

“Montague’s semantic analyses were given in terms of a type-logical hierarchy whose basic ingredients were truth values, possible individuals, and possible worlds. While the exact nature of individuals and worlds depends on the (arbitrary) choice of a particular model (or ‘Fregean interpretation’), the truth values 1 (true) and 0 (false) transcend the class of all models, thus emphasizing their status as logical objects.”

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montague-semantics/#Pra

 

—

James Gray what I’m trying to do is tie a lot of this to the medieval “particulars vs universals” as it comes from that family of 800+ year old debates ultimately

—

James Gray So for example if you had to talk about predicate logic in a way that medieval scholars would comprehend it should certainly be possible

—

 

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]