>Duane:
>You are right. This goes to the heart of the
>issue of "vicious circularity" that Whitehead
>and Russell had thought was sorted with
>Principia Mathematica, until Kurt Gödel came
>along and demolished their shiny, perfect, world. (01)
Um, please don't think I am being too picky here,
but this assertion contains so many
misunderstandings that I may not have time to
list them all. Goedel's result has nothing to do
with Russell and Whitehead's set theory, and
neither of them have anything much to do with
ontology or ontologies. The shiny, perfect world
that Goedel refuted was Hilbert's dream of a
self-verifying formalization of mathematics which
could prove itself consistent. Russell and
Whitehead's Principia was a response to Russell's
demolishing of Frege's naive set theory. Set
theory is also a mathematician's dream, but a
different one; and one that has not been
demolished but in fact is, usually in the form of
Zermelo-Fraenkel (Z-F) set theory rather than
Russell & Whitehead's consistent but unworkable
type theory (or even Ramsey's ramified type
theory from six years later) still the widely
accepted mathematical foundational language that
is as near to consistent as anything can be. But
in any case, ALL of this has to do with
mathematics; and as Duane says, ontologies are
usually taken to be about part of the real world,
not the Platonic world of mathematics; and the
question of how to ground such theories in the
actual world (either of physical entities or of
experiences) is not even remotely relevant to, or
influenced by, such matters as axiomatic set
theory or Goedel's second theorem. (02)
By the way, Im not sure what you are referring to
by "vicious circularity", but what links
Russell's paradox and Goedel's undecideability
result (and Turing's uncomputability theorem) is
that they all derive fairly directly from the
classical Liar paradox "This sentence is false",
which itself is made possible only by
self-reference. If this is what you mean, it also
has nothing much to do with ontologies and their
grounding. (03)
>An ontology is not just some self-referencing
>and self-sustaining model that is somehow
>"complete"; it points out to the real world, as
>you rightly say.
>
>Before there is a flame war on this, I should
>underline that we discussed this extensively at
>the Ontology Summit, and there was an
>(uncomfortable for some) consensus that there is
>"Ontology" as *the* study of being; and there
>are "ontologies" that are domain-specific
>encapsulations of some aspect of the real world. (04)
This distinction between the original,
philosophical, meaning of 'ontology' and its more
recent, computer-science/IT/AI/KR/engineering
meaning has been noted every since the second
usage was coined, and should be familiar to
everyone who has any opinion to express in either
field. There is a Wikipedia disambiguation page
devoted to it. If anyone feels "uncomfortable"
about it, they need to get more comfortable as
soon as possible, and preferably before sending
any more emails on the topic. (05)
Pat (06)
>
>Peter
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
>Sent: 31 July 2007 16:05
>To: [ontolog-forum]; John F. Sowa
>Cc: 'SW-forum'
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Current Semantic Web Layer Cake
>
>
>
>
>On 7/31/07 12:46 PM, "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> The real semantics or meanings of any symbolism or notation is defined by
>> ontology; for this is the only knowledge domain studying the Being of
>> Everything which is, happens and relates.
>
>Not trying to start a nit picky argument, but I had always thought that real
>semantics are defined by how a term is used and what it is linked to in a
>physical world (which of course can be captured and expressed in an
>ontology). Otherwise any ontology is just a huge circular reference (like
>the english dictionary when void of any grounding.
>
>How can one define and convey the true meaning of spicy food, heat, pain etc
>without the corresponding grounding experience?
>
>Duane
>
>--
>**********************************************************************
>"Speaking only for myself"
>Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
>Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
>My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
>MAX 2007 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/07/adobe-max-2007.html
>**********************************************************************
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>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
> (07)
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|