ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL

 To: "[ontolog-forum] " Christopher Menzel Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:20:29 -0500 <6574B789-6CF8-4335-B3CF-E68496E34E06@xxxxxxxx>
 ```> The critical distinction between set theory and mereology > is that the axioms of set theory generate something new: > > For any x, the set {x} is distinct from x.    (01) Yes, in well-founded set theories like Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory, but singletons are perhaps the wrong thing to focus on to highlight the distinction in question, as there are in fact so-called non-well- founded set theories in which x = {x}. (See, e.g., the fine book Vicious Circles by Moss and Barwise that I think I've mentioned before.)    (02) The critical difference between set theory and mereology (I know that you yourself know this, John) is that, in the former, you get, so to speak, an "upward" ontological explosion. For example, in mereology, starting with a, b, and c, we can infer the existence of new objects a +b, b+c, a+c, and a+b+c. Importantly, though, any sum formed from these objects is identical to one of the sums we've already got. Thus, e.g., (a+b)+(b+c) = a+b+c. Sum formation, so to say, stops after one iteration. In set theory, by contrast, we get analogues {a,b}, {b,c}, {a,c}, {a,b,c} of the four sums above, but, critically, the set {{a,b},{b,c}} formed from {a,b} and {b,c} is *not* identical to {a,b,c}. It therefore can itself serve as a member of such new sets as {{a,b},{{a,b},{b,c}}} and off we go into an infinite, iterative hierarchy of sets starting with only our modest stock of a, b, and c.    (03) Chris Menzel    (04) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (05) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and OntologyinMetaphysics, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and OntologyinMetaphysics, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and OntologyinMetaphysics, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and Ontology in Metaphysics, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and Ontology in Metaphysics, Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and Ontology in Metaphysics, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] The Relation Between Logic and Ontology in Metaphysics, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Christopher Menzel <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Duane Nickull Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL, Smith, Barry