[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology, Information Models and the 'Real World': C

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2007 00:18:40 +0200
Message-id: <46609B40.9010505@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Pat Hayes wrote:
> This message, and indeed this sub-thread, 
> illustrate perfectly what seems to me to be the 
> key advantage of using a 'context ontology' (as 
> IKL does: that is, treating contexts as objects 
> and making non-contextual assertions about them) 
> as opposed to a 'context logic' (that is, a logic 
> in which assertions are understood as being made 
> in a context and interpreted there using 
> contextually local criteria). In a word, contexts 
> in a context logic make meaningful things 
> meaningless.    (01)

I have an uncomfortable feeling that IKL prevents me from making some 
simple statements, or that it forces me to do it in an awkward way.    (02)

The sentence    (03)

(sleeps pat)    (04)

means    (05)

(that (sleeps pat))    (06)

i.e., its meaning is the proposition that Pat sleeps, simply, 
context-independently, eternally -- which is nonsense.  Let me want to 
say that Pat sleeps during some specific interval, say int.  If I make 
the statement    (07)

(ist int (that (sleeps pat)))    (08)

what I say is that the (simply and eternally false) proposition that Pat 
sleeps, simply, context-independently, eternally is (the proposition) in 
the relation ist with the context int.  But what does that mean? 
Instead of making a statement about Pat's sleeping during int, I make a 
statement that some proposition -- which I already know is simply false 
-- stands in a relation to an interval.  Pat suggests -- insists, in 
fact -- that (ist c p) does not mean that p is true, it just means that 
p ist-stands to c, which incidentally is read out as 'p is c-true', and 
which has nothing to do with p's truthness.    (09)

So perhaps I would need to say    (010)

(sleeps-during pat int)    (011)

for which I need to introduce the predicate sleeps-at, or maybe even    (012)

(sleeps-during-int pat)    (013)

?    (014)

If we deny that (ist c p) means that p (somehow) is true when c is the 
case (by which I mean *is true* in c, not is-true-in-c) -- given that it 
is just false, immutably -- then (ist int (that (sleeps pat))) cannot 
mean that Pat sleeps during int, because it is neither about Pat's 
sleeping, nor about (that (sleeps pat))'s truth.    (015)

Can I say that Pat sleeps during int?    (016)

(I must be deeply wrong about IKL, I guess.)    (017)

vQ    (018)

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    (019)

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