@misc{Lexicon of Arguments, title = {Quotation from: Lexicon of Arguments – Concepts - Ed. Martin Schulz, 28 Mar 2024}, author = {Cresswell,Maxwell J.}, subject = {Contingency}, note = {II 64 Contingent/Necessary/Predicate/Cresswell: suppose predicate P is contingent and applies to the objects a1, a2... N.B.: we can convert this contingent predicate into a necessary predicate: Necessary/Predicate: Q: should necessarily apply to precisely those objects to which P applies contingently. Solution: Q: "is a1 or a2 or is..." Meaning: the meaning of these two predicates is of course not the same, but it would have to be, because they apply to the same set of things. >Extensionality. Could there be two such predicates? Some perception predicates seem to work like this. E.g. Suppose the set of red and round things happened to be the same set - but the internal patterns (devices) in recognizing subjects are different. >Perception, >Attribution, >Observation, >Observation language, >Observation sentence.}, note = { Cr I M. J. Cresswell Semantical Essays (Possible worlds and their rivals) Dordrecht Boston 1988 Cr II M. J. Cresswell Structured Meanings Cambridge Mass. 1984 }, file = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=240887} url = {http://philosophy-science-humanities-controversies.com/listview-details.php?id=240887} }