[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:45:19 -0500
Message-id: <45FC535F.9020608@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Kathy,    (01)

I agree with that point:    (02)

 > If we go around saying the universe "is" a set, we are
 > in danger of confusing a representation of the world with
 > the world we are representing.    (03)

Many people prefer to use mereology instead of set theory.
I won't argue with anyone about their preferences, but
the fact that there are options implies that there are
many ways of representing or talking about the world.    (04)

Pat Hayes said that he doesn't like mereology -- perhaps
because there are so many different axiomatizations for it.
Again, I won't argue about preferences, but I don't consider
that an argument for preferring set theory.  I wouldn't
consider any of them more fundamental than any other.    (05)

Common Logic is completely neutral about that matter.  It has
no built-in ontology of sets, mereology, or even numbers.  It
does recognize the numerals as a special kind of names, but
it doesn't assume any particular theory of numbers.    (06)

John    (07)

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    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>