[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning WebArchitecture and

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:16:50 +0200
Message-id: <46A7CBD2.3000007@xxxxxxxxxxx>
John F. Sowa wrote:
> Wacek,
> The question of how to or whether to represent a null value of
> some kind is a context-dependent issue about how to regularize
> the operators of some mathematical system.
> vQ> If you and me are just you and me, then nothing is nothing,
>  > no entity at all, and not the empty set.  You can well
>  > interpret 'nothing' as a sheet of paper on which there is
>  > no drawing, though there is the sheet -- how do such
>  > interpretations help?
> The number 0, for example, simplifies the statements of many
> arithmetic principles.  Similarly, the empty set simplifies
> many of the axioms of set theory.  In lattices, the bottom
> symbol simplifies many axioms.  In a Boolean lattice, the
> bottom corresponds to a proposition that is always false;
> such a proposition doesn't say anything useful, but it makes
> it possible to formulate the axioms more systematically.
> For some mathematical structures, a null value has no useful
> role.  In most versions of mereology, for example, there is
> no empty part.  An atom in mereology is defined to be something
> that has no part other than itself.  In such systems, the word
> 'nothing' is just a way of saying 'no thing'.  Unlike the empty
> set, which is assumed to exist in set theory, the word 'nothing'
> (or a formal symbol that represents it) would be a way of saying
> "It is false that there exists an x such that..."
> In short, the concept of 'nothing' or a 'null value' depends
> on the operations needed to regularize some system.    (01)

No doubt here.  I thought we were talking about ontology there, and 
interpreting 'nothing' as denoting the empty set (an entity in itself) 
does not seem correct to me.  Of course, you may build a mathematical 
model of reality in which nothing is modelled as the empty set (and the 
empty set is modelled as the set composed of the empty set), and such a 
model may be used to interpret sentences containing the word 'nothing'.    (02)

But I do not see how "''nothing'', or
  ''nonentity'' or ''nonbeing'', interpreted as the empty set, is another
  ontological category."    (03)

vQ    (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)

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