Chris, Pat: (01)
The post was an attempt to address my perceptions of this thread and other
before it have gone around in circles. What I have inferred (sorry for the
use of the term here) from this is that several people are discussing a
subject, each of which has a subtle difference of semantics on the terms
used and in the level of assumptions being made about the basis for their
statements. What would be possibly helpful is agreement on a frame in
which to hold the discussion in terms of definitions and assumptions. (02)
The example given: (03)
<from_chris_email>
(1) There are no higher-order properties (04)
from (05)
(2) Traditional first-order language L is unable to express that
there are higher-order properties (06)
is an "ontological implication". My response is that there is no
implication of any sort here, there is simply a bad inference. (2)
does not *imply* (1), and so it would be a logical mistake to *infer*
(1) from (2). Nothing, once again, follows about the existence of Xs
from the fact that a given formalism cannot say anything about Xs. (07)
</from_chris_email> (08)
I have made the assumption that the definitions of the words in (2) are
highly relevant to deriving 1 from 2. The key word for me is "unable".
>From its position in the english language and with my knowledge of grammar,
it implies to me that FOL L may have a restriction on *expressing* such, but
does *not* mean that the higher order properties do not exist. This is
based on my definitions of "unable" and both 1 and 2 in their entirety. If
others do not share these base definitions, their actual mileage may vary
and are prone to perhaps disagree with the statements I have made. (09)
What might be nice (but possibly impossible) is to agree on some frame of
reference or common definitions of the terms used in this thread and others.
Without such, I fear this community will be doomed to argue the very basic
tenets of ontology without arriving at consensus. (010)
This however, is the thoughts of an amateur ontology wannabe. Apologies if
it is off base. Take it with a proverbial grain of salt. (011)
Duane (012)
On 3/16/07 12:51 PM, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx> wrote: (013)
>> IMO - this discussion is rapidly reaching the "say something to prove you
>> exist" challenge.
>
> Well, it is getting tiresome, but it at least is about *something*
> (whether or not the choice of logic commits us to significant
> ontological decisions or bias.)
>
>> Since several of the upper level ontology work defines
>> forms of first order logic, can we at least frame this debate/conversation
>> in some lexicon?
>
> ? It is in a lexicon. What do you mean?
If the argument is about a bad inference vs. a (014)
>
>> Wouldn't it make infinite more sense than starting with a
>> blank slate?
>
> I think all the participants have between one and three decades of
> experience to draw on, so the slates are hardly blank. But I agree
> its getting kind of tedious.
>
> I recommend that anyone who has felt constrained by traditional FOL
> try getting used to CLIF or IKL. It is a bit like going to a mental
> chiropractor. The general mental loosening-up which comes from an
> exercise using the 'wild west syntax' can be quite liberating.
>
> Pat
> (015)
--
**********************************************************
Sr. Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc. *
Chair - OASIS SOA Reference Model Technical Committee *
Blog: http://technoracle.blogspot.com *
Music: http://www.mix2r.com/audio/by/artist/duane_nickull*
********************************************************** (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (017)
|