Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic

["Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Duane wrote:

''I find the title of this thread a bit difficult to grok.  "Reality oriented
Logic"?  As opposed to logic based on non-reality?  I am not sure I
understand what the alternative is.  Can someone please explain?  Sorry if I
missed the obvious.''

It is not so complex as you might think.

There are generally two types of logics: Content-oriented and Form-oriented, as much as two kinds of semantics: reality-centered and just so called formal; semantics. 

The first one is reality-driven logic based on ontological axioms and assumptions, where the universe of discourse is the world, its kinds, levels, pieces, fragments. The second one, more familiar here on this forum, is nonreality oriented logic based on formal assumptions, where the universe of discourse is logical objects and processes. Although it may refer to anything, such logic represents nothing but the structure of human thought and knowledge.  

 

So the content-driven logic is about abstract ontological theories (or languages) composed of sign (symbol) systems and signification relations from sings to constructs to world entities. 

 

The form-driven logic is concerned with abstract formal theories (or languages) consisting of sign (symbol) systems plus just designation relations from signs to constructs.

Jon is trying to start a good thread, with no positive understanding. A bit sad.

 

Azamat Abdoullaev

 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "Arisbe" <arisbe@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Inquiry" <inquiry@xxxxxxxxxx>; "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@xxxxxx>

Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2007 7:52 PM

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic

I find the title of this thread a bit difficult to grok.  "Reality 
oriented
Logic"?  As opposed to logic based on non-reality?  I am 
not sure I
understand what the alternative is.  Can someone please 
explain?  Sorry if I
missed the obvious.

Duane


On 
8/9/07 5:56 AM, "Jon Awbrey" <jawbrey@xxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> 
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> 
ROL.  Note 3
> 
> 
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
> 
JA = Jon Awbrey
> JS = John Sowa
> 
> Cf: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00190.html
> Cf: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00194.html
> CC: Arisbe List, Inquiry List, Ontolog Forum, SemWeb 
List
> 
> John,
> 
> Continuing from where I left 
off,
> with current comments unindented.
> 
> JA: Let's look 
again at the concept of "inter-operability"
>     that 
you outlined last time.  I'm a little 
hesitant
>     about calling it that just yet, and 
would prefer
>     to call it "inter-translatability" 
until I know
>     more about it.
> 
> JS: 
Consider the following three notations:
> 
> JS: 1.  The 
first-order subset of Peirce's Algebra of Logic of 1885.
>  
> 
JS: 2.  The first-order subset of Frege's Begriffsschrift of 1879.
> 
> JS: 3.  Any of the three concrete notations in Annex A, B, or C 
of
>         the Final Draft 
International Standard of Common Logic of 2007.
> 
> JA: I am told 
by people who apparently understand these things 
that
>     having not just 2 but 3 distinct languages 
on the Rosetta Stone
>     was crucial to finding the 
key, but let me first consider a far
>     simpler 
example of the ilk that I know from practical endeavors.
> 
> JA: 
Something that I spent a goodly portion of the (19)80's 
doing,
>     and in such primitive computing 
circumstances that I had to write
>     all of the 
necessary utilities myself, was to translate an 
articula
>     x_1 of one language, medium, or type 
L_1 (written x_1 : L_1) into
>     an articula x_2 of 
another language, medium, or type L_2 (written
>     
x_2 : L_2), perform a computation on x_2 : L_2 that would 
yield
>     an articula y_2 : L_2, then translate y_2 
: L_2 back into the
>     corresponding y_1 : 
L_1.
> 
> JA: Here is a diagram of the process:
> 
>     x_1 : L_1 ----------> x_2 : 
L_2
>         
|                     
|
>                               
|
>         
|                     
|
>                               
|
>         
|                     
|
>         
V                     
V
>     y_1 : L_1 <---------- y_2 : L_2
> 
> JA: The more solid arrows indicate the actual 
computations.
>     The more dashing arrow, the road 
not taken, as it were,
>     suggests the virtual 
computation, in effect exchanging
>     x_1 : L_1 for 
y_1 : L_1 or transforming x_1 : L_1 into
>     y_1 : 
L_1.
> 
> Why do we do this?  Why such a roundabout 
calculation?
> Well, it's important to note that the reason for 
this
> detour is not just some equivalence between languages
> but 
based on the existence of complex factors, namely,
> that L_1 and L_2 are 
analogous in an abstract logical
> or mathematical sense while departing 
from each other
> in a pertinent class of concrete pragmatic 
properties.
> 
> The computational archetype of this particular 
gambit
> is probably the trick known as "logarithms", where we
> 
convert what was once considered a "hard" computation,
> namely, 
multiplication, into a relatively "easy" task,
> namely, addition.  
The trick works because there is a
> homomorphism log : (X,*) -> (Y,+) 
on suitably bounded
> subsets X and Y of the real numbers R that enables 
us
> to start with a problem presented in the form a*b and
> to 
re-present it in the form log(a) + log(b), and all
> the computations 
involved in this long way round used
> to be in former times appreciably 
easier to carry out
> than the corresponding multiplication task.
> 
> As a general observation, then, the reason that we keep
> a 
diversity of languages around is not because they are
> indifferent in all 
of their characters but because they
> provide us with different 
advantages at different times.
> 
> Breaking here ...
> 
> Jon Awbrey
> 
> 
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> inquiry 
e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> ¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
> zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
> wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
> 
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> 
>  
> 
_________________________________________________________________
> 
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
>  

-- 
**********************************************************************
"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    (01)