[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Barker, Sean (UK)" <Sean.Barker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:24:20 +0100
Message-id: <E18F7C3C090D5D40A854F1D080A84CA4431D0F@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Pat,    (01)

        You evidently have not done a course in geometry where every theorem 
starts with the assumption "if 2 not-equal-to 0". This leaves mathematicians 
permanently scared with the idea that pure mathematics is a formal system 
independent of reality - "a game played this way" if you like - and it is the 
job of applied mathematicians to identify the formal apparatus that can be used 
to model some aspects of reality. This is not to say that the mathematics 
cannot apply to reality, but rather that it is sometimes tricky to work out 
which parts it applies to.
        Perhaps the question keeps arising because there is a fundamental 
difference in assumptions/perceptions between the different religions of 
mathematics and logic (to wander into another thread)?     (02)

Sean Barker
Bristol, UK    (03)

This mail is publicly posted to a distribution list as part of a process of 
public discussion, any automatically generated statements to the contrary 
non-withstanding. It is the opinion of the author, and does not represent an 
official company view.    (04)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pat Hayes
> Sent: 09 August 2007 20:57
> To: Azamat
> Cc: [ontolog-forum] 
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic
>                *** WARNING ***
> This mail has originated outside your organization, either 
> from an external partner or the Global Internet. 
>      Keep this in mind if you answer this message. 
> >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.
> Indeed, it is meaningless.
> >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.
> 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'.
> 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?
> Pat Hayes    (05)

This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************    (06)

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)

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