ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

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

 To: "[ontolog-forum] " , "Barker, Sean (UK)" Avril Styrman Fri, 10 Aug 2007 17:53:24 +0300 <1186757604.46bc7be4dbc92@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 Here's some of Aristotle's remarks about mathematics, just in case somebody's interested. Many of his remarks are still remarkably fresh.    (01) Metaphysics, book 1, chapter 9: ... but mathematics has come to be identical with philosophy for modern thinkers, thought they say that it should be studied for the sake of other things.    (02) Metaphysics, book 2, chapter 3: And some want to have everything done accurately, while others are annoyed by accuracy, either because they cannot follow the connexion of thought or because they regard it as pettifoggery. ... The minute accuracy of mathematics is not to be demanded in in all cases, but only in the cases of things which have no matter. Hence its method is not that of natural science; for presumably the whole nature has matter.    (03) Metaphysics, book 13, chapter 3: ...those who assert that the mathematical sciences say nothing of the beautiful or the good are in error. For these sciences say and prove a great deal about them; if they do not expressly mention them, but prove attributes which are their results or their definitions, it is not true to say that they tell us nothing about them. The chief forms of beauty are order and symmetry and definiteness, which the mathematical sciences demonstrate in a special degree.    (04) Metaphysics, book 14, chapter 2: One might fix one's attention also on the question, regarding the numbers, what justifies the belief that they exist. To the believer in Ideas they provide some sort of cause for existing things, since each number is an Idea, and the Idea is to other things somehow or other the cause of their being; let this supposition be granted to them. But as for him who does not hold this view because he sees the inherent objections to the Ideas (so that it is not for {\it this} reason that he posits numbers), but who posits {\it mathematical} number, why must we believe his statement that some number exists, and what use is such number to other things? Neither does he who says it exists maintain that it is the cause of anything (he rather says it is a thing existing by itself), nor is it observed to be the cause of anything;    (05) Metaphysics book 14, chapter 3: But it is not hard to assume any random hypothesis and spin out a long string of conclusions. These thinkers, then, are wrong in this way, in wanting to unite the objects of mathematics with the Ideas.    (06) Metaphysics, book 1, chapter 9: Let us leave the Pythagoreans for the present; for it is enough to have touched on them as much as we have done.    (07) Avril    (08) Lainaus "Barker, Sean (UK)" :    (09) > > Pat, > > 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)? > > Sean Barker > Bristol, UK > > 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. > > > > -----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 > > ******************************************************************** > 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. > ******************************************************************** > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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) -- Always forward towards the supreme maxim of scientific philosophizing    (011) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (012) 
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, clynch Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, clynch Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Kathryn Blackmond Laskey Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, clynch Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Adrian Walker Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Chris Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Reality Oriented Logic, Avril Styrman <=