Do you want to go on to the other SEP article, or have we treated it sufficiently?

I haven't gone into the detail of the section on Combinatorialism as much as we might .

Thanks for the thread.

Do you want to go on to the other SEP article, or have we treated it sufficiently? — Banno

The second article is about ontology. I think you and I will probably land in the same place regarding that topic. I think we can hold off unless you're charged up to read it.

haven't gone into the detail of the section on Combinatorialism as much as we might . — Banno

Again, it's up to you.

Well, yes, what's real is dependent on the task in hand, so the Possibilism-Actualism Debate is pretty superfluous.

And i doubt present company will make much of such a view.

The extension of "Bridgett Bardot" remains Bridgett Bardot, even if she had started a fish shop instead of going into acting. — Banno

How does that answer the question? I asked you about the difference between "extension" in relation to physical objects, and "extension" in relation to abstract objects.

Are you admitting that you do not recognize that there is such a difference? If so that would explain why you always seem to conflate the "actual world", in reference to a physical thing, and the "actual world" in reference to an abstract object in possible worlds semantics.

Well, yes, what's real is dependent on the task in hand, so the Possibilism-Actualism Debate is pretty superfluous. — Banno

That's exactly what I think. Where ontology leaves practical matters behind, it's a wild goose chase.

How does that answer the question? I asked you about the difference between "extension" in relation to physical objects, and "extension" in relation to abstract objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Bardot who works in the fish shop is...?

Yeah. Send in the clowns.