[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology and methodology

To: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:19:12 -0500
Message-id: <p06230909c227272d7374@[]>
>I believe that is an important distinction:
>PH> You are referring to what I was calling a 'framework'. It
>  > amounts to an agreed metaphysics, in effect: agreeing to adopt
>  > a certain perspective on certain basic issues, often having
>  > to do with relationships and time and necessity, and to use
>  > a certain basic style of description when talking of these
>  > things. DOLCE is in this category.
>The arguments I was having with Chris P. and John B. were about
>the underlying metaphysics.  FOL, especially the Common Logic
>version of FOL, is about as neutral as one can get.  But any
>strategy, such as DOLCE, which has metaphysical implications
>drags us into a swamp of endless debates.    (01)

Indeed. And it is exactly these debates that I 
think we can avoid by allowing everyone to 
express themselves in their preferred way, and 
writing conversion (what Ive been calling 
fishplate) ontologies to translate between them, 
in the IKRIS mode. So for example Bateman's 
quasi-individuals translate into Sowa's roles; 
and Johanssen, who believes in property 
instances, can talk to Hayes, who doesn't, using 
this as a fishplate (using IKL conventions):    (02)

(= inheres (frameworkName JohanssenMetaph 'inheres'))
(= propInstance (frameworkName JohanssenMeta 'property instance'))    (03)

(forall (x  ...)(iff (x ...)(exists ((y propInstance))(and
(propInstance y x)(inheres x ...)(not (HayesMetaph y))
)) ))    (04)

BTW, for "fishplate" see
This is what made 20' long steel rails into continent-spanning railways :-)    (05)

>What I have always complained about DOLCE is the notion of
>"essential".  That is a modal term, which, as I have said
>many times, is always determined by some implicit principle
>that makes something "essential".  Instead of hiding behind
>a little box in modal logic, anyone who claims something is
>"essential" should state exactly what law or principle makes
>it essential.    (06)

Or state *exactly* which quantified modal logic 
they are using, and preferably which style of 
translation they prefer from it to conventional 
FOL. And if not the last, then to not complain 
when others make that decision for them.    (07)

>The other point is about the number of different "entities"
>implied by role language.  I don't care what assumptions
>anyone makes, but I'd like to see them formulate them by
>stating exactly what they're quantifying over.  Then they
>can state explicitly exactly how those roles are related
>to the things that are playing the roles.    (08)

Right. In fact, I recommend a kind of universal 
solvent for debates about what 'really' exists 
(one that will make metaphysicians gnash their 
teeth). They all exist. Logical quantifiers range 
over all entities that anyone, anywhere, might 
ever want to talk about. This is a much bigger 
set than anyone (except maybe David Lewis) thinks 
is the actual universe of real things that really 
exist, so everyone should give their universe of 
real things a name, and restrict their 
quantifiers to it. (Yes, Virginia, existence is a 
predicate.) Common logic provides a construction 
called a 'module' to do this with minimum 
syntactic fuss (in particular, you only have to 
write out the restriction once, instead of 
repeating it in every sentence.)    (09)

In the IKL guide we called this being 'panoptic'. 
Its essential for real interoperation. Nobody 
ever intends to quantify over what other people 
want to quantify over (c.f. the discussion here 
about qua-individuals: myself, I wonder, with 
Quine, how many qua-individuals can be found in 
an empty doorway); so the only sensible stance to 
adopt at the global level is that when exchanging 
information, one is always talking about part of 
the universe which is needed to be the common 
ground of the conversation.    (010)

Pat    (011)

>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
>    (012)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (013)

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    (014)

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