[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic

To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 14:57:11 -0500
Message-id: <p0623091ec2e11f225486@[]>
>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.    (01)

Indeed, it is meaningless.    (02)

>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.      (03)

I could not disagree more. This passage is full 
of basic misunderstandings. Formal semantics 
means semantics done formally, not a semantics of 
something 'unreal' because it is 'formal' in 
nature. The universe of discourse of a (formal) 
logic, according to the usual (formal) semantics, 
is not "logical objects and processes" (whatever 
they are) but is some set of things. Any set of 
things will do, and they can be abstract, 
imaginary, real or concrete. The theory is 
completely agnostic concerning the nature of 
these things in the universe. They are not 
required to be "constructs". They are not 
restricted to things that are "logical" in 
nature. Nothing in any part of the metatheory, 
semantics, philosophy, engineering or history of 
modern logic even slightly suggests that logics 
do not apply to reasoning about entities in the 
real world. All logic [*] is 'reality oriented', 
although it might be better to say 'reality 
orientable'.    (04)

As we have had this discussion in this forum now 
several times, I would like to ask anyone who 
disagrees with the above to actually make a case 
for their position, rather than simply assume 
that virtually all of modern logical theory is 
mistaken and proceed from there. Azamat, you want 
to start?    (05)

Pat Hayes    (06)

[*] PS. Actually, some logics are restricted to 
reasoning about purely computational entities 
which satisfy the second recursion theorem. 
Prolog is an example. But in this discussion that 
is probably a mere technicality; and in any case, 
computation is arguably real itself.    (07)

>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" <<mailto:dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
>To: "[ontolog-forum]" 
>"Semantic Web" 
>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.
>On 8/9/07 5:56 AM, "Jon Awbrey" 
><<mailto:jawbrey@xxxxxxx>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: 
>>  Cf: 
>>  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: 
>>  ¢iare: 
>>  getwiki: 
>  > zhongwen wp: 
>>  wp review: 
>>  o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>>  _________________________________________________________________
>>  Message Archives: 
>>  Subscribe/Config: 
>>  Unsubscribe: 
>>  Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>>  Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>>  To Post: 
>"Speaking only for myself"
>Blog - <http://technoracle.blogspot.com>http://technoracle.blogspot.com
>Community Music - <http://www.mix2r.com>http://www.mix2r.com
>My Band - 
>MAX 2007 - 
>Message Archives: 
>Shared Files: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: <http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/>http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: 
>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
>    (08)

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    (09)

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    (010)

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