On the translation from quantified modal logic to counterpart theory

Lewis (1968) claims that his language of Counterpart Theory (CT) interprets modal discourse and he adverts to a translation scheme from the language of Quantifed Modal Logic (QML) to CT. However, everybody now agrees that his original translation scheme does not always work, since it does not always preserve the ‘intuitive’ meaning of the translated QML-formulas. Lewis discusses this problem with regard to the Necessitist Thesis, and I will extend his discourse to the analysis of the Converse Barcan Formula. Everyone also agrees that there are CT-formulas that can express the QMLcontent that gets lost through the translation. The problem is how we arrive to them. In this paper, I propose new translation rules from QML to CT, based on a suggestion by Kaplan. However, I will claim that we cannot have ‘the’ translation scheme from QML to CT. The reason being that de re modal language is ambiguous. Accordingly, there are diferent sorts of QML, depending on how we resolve such ambiguity. Therefore, depending on what sort of QML we intend to translate into CT, we need to use the corresponding translation scheme. This suggests that all the translation problems might just disappear if we do what Lewis did not: begin with a fully worked out QML that tells us how to understand de re modal discourse

Understanding TERT promoter mutations: a common path to immortality

Telomerase (TERT) activation is a fundamental step in tumorigenesis. By maintaining telomere length, telomerase relieves a main barrier on cellular lifespan, enabling limitless proliferation driven by oncogenes. The recently discovered, highly recurrent mutations in the promoter of TERT are found in over 50 cancer types, and are the most common mutation in many cancers. Transcriptional activation of TERT, via promoter mutation or other mechanisms, is the rate-limiting step in production of active telomerase. Although TERT is expressed in stem cells, it is naturally silenced upon differentiation. Thus, the presence of TERT promoter mutations may shed light on whether a particular tumor arose from a stem cell or more differentiated cell type. It is becoming clear that TERT mutations occur early during cellular transformation, and activate the TERT promoter by recruiting transcription factors that do not normally regulate TERT gene expression. This review highlights the fundamental and widespread role of TERT promoter mutations in tumorigenesis, including recent progress on their mechanism of transcriptional activation. These somatic promoter mutations, along with germline variation in the TERT locus also appear to have significant value as biomarkers of patient outcome. Understanding the precise molecular mechanism of TERT activation by promoter mutation and germline variation may inspire novel cancer cell-specific targeted therapies for a large number of cancer patients.Support was provided from a generous gift from the Dabbiere family(RJB,AM,JFC), the Hana Jabsheh Research Initiative (RJB,AM,JFC), and NIH grants NCI P50CA097257 (RJB,AM,JFC), P01CA118816-06 (RJB,AM,JFC), R01HG003008 (HTR), and R01CA163336 (JSS). Additional support was provided from the Sontag Foundation Distinguished Scientist Award (JSS), Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia SFRH/BD/88220/2012 (AXM), IF/00601/2012 (BMC), Programa Operacional Regional do Norte (ON.2—O Novo Norte) (BMC), Quadro de Referência Estratégico Nacional (BMC), and Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional (BMC).info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Aristotelian essentialism in David Lewis’s theory

David Lewis is usually thought to reject what Quine called ‘Aristotelian essentialism’. In this paper, I will define Aristotelian essentialism and locate it in the context of the criticism that Quine made of quantified modal logic. Indeed, according to Quine, Aristotelian essentialism would be one of the consequences of accepting quantified modal logic. Then, I will explain Lewis’s stance in the Quinean debate against quantified modal logic. Finally, I will deal with the question as to whether Lewis accepts or rejects Aristotelian essentialism. I think there are different plausible interpretations of the essentialist thesis, and I will distinguish between three such interpretations. This distinction between different interpretations of essentialism is both interesting per se and helpful in understanding the senses in which Lewis is or is not an antiessentialist. I will say, in fact, that while it is true that Lewis rejects Aristotelian essentialism under the first two understandings of the essentialist thesis, he endorses such a thesis according to a third understanding. I will then take this to show that there is a sense in which Aristotelian essentialism survives in Lewis’s metaphysical theory

Natural Properties Do Not Support Essentialism in Counterpart Theory: A Reflection on Buras’s Proposal

David Lewis may be regarded as an antiessentialist. The reason is that he is said to believe that individuals do not have essential properties independent of the ways they are represented. According to him, indeed, the properties that are determined to be essential to individuals are a matter of which similarity relations among individuals are salient, and salience, in turn, is a contextual matter also determined to some extent by the ways individuals are represented. Todd Buras argues that the acknowledgment of natural properties in counterpart theoretic ontology affects Lewis’s theory with regard to essentialism. Buras’s reasoning is appealing. He claims that, since natural properties determine the existence of similarity relations among individuals that are salient independent of context, Lewis can no longer be claimed to be an antiessentialist. The aim of this paper is to argue, against Buras, that if counterpart theory was antiessentialist before natural properties were taken into account, then it remains so afterwards

Il surplus da continuità nella gestione dei debiti fiscali e contributivi tra aperture giurisprudenziali e novità legislative

Lo scritto, ripercorrendo le vicende che hanno interessato la gestione dei debiti tributari e previdenziali nell’ambito delle procedure di concordato preventivo e degli accordi di ristrutturazione, evidenzia le principali novità introdotte, con particolare riguardo all’utilizzo del surplus da continuità, dal Codice della crisi come modificato dal d.lgs. n. 83/2022