Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures

[FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Len,

I think it makes no sense for me to write fragments of what should be more systematically presented and not just in response to a point made without trying to see another point.

 

It is a pity that my language is not clear enough for you and perhaps others.

 

"What you said is tautology because "properties" and "objects" are concepts in the first place. To get out of it some smart people invented Category Theory to deal with objects in a consistent way. What you call "working backwards" is known as transformation or morphism, includes identity and many other properties. The basic idea of connecting object properties with their identity  is known as "strong reference" and was originally proposed by Chris Partridge (who had occasionally contributed to this forum). He had also given a special role to reified binary relations that he called "tuple places". I have further advanced notion of "strong reference" by proposing specific method of making it computable."

 

What I meant to say there that in the begionning you hav enothing that you are aware of, and when you already are aware of Being, Life, the Whole, or the World, or the concept of number one, you immediately chunk the world into two, form and content, and other bipole concepts, then yopu may have one more step and arrive at concepts that go in three.

Of the latter objects, properties and relations seem to be enough to be the root classes of anything else, yet they are subjected to recursion and their bets definition is given in a rcursive fashion. (Not included here, but ma be demonstarted on demand)

Now all that is not sufficient to model our relaity, because relations are hidden in current terminology.Objects are likely to be represented in two dimensions, trying to mock a picture of the world, a static one though. Properties are derived by abstraction, an ongoing process, yet not contiguous, but stepwise or incremental. If you want to visualize that process you get a multidimensional space with circular paths and cycles, a paradigm not available to the Greek to implement without even the idea of a computer.

Natural Languages are also recursive, but there are no synonyms, just as there is no use of approaching thinking by using syntax or parsing to arrive at terminal symbols.

The terminal symobols if you like the concepts used in upper ontology. One must see how parts iof speech, concepts of informal logic and cognitive science refere to the same chunk of reality with different names. Evereybody should be clear about his own set of basic concepts, like physicists should define the condept of space and time and we should rely on those definitions for alignment in toher fields.

 

I hope I have not wondered off again too much. 
But now I must go to bed. See you tommorrow

Frank...

 

Kindest regards,

 

 

Ferenc Kovacs

alias Frank

Genezistan

"Starting all over"

+44 77 70654068 (Vodafone)
www.firkasz.com and http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?FerencKovacs

 

 

----- Original Message ----
From: Len Yabloko <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: [ontolog-forum] <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, 5 August, 2008 11:07:33 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures

Frank,

>Len,Thank you for this challenging reply. here is what I can add to it:

LY>What are you suggesting?
...
FK>The main point is that an object as a concept is your creation, and is a result of specification wroking backwards from the list of properties to identify an object.
>

What you said is tautology because "properties" and "objects" are concepts in the first place. To get out of it some smart people invented Category Theory to deal with objects in a consistent way. What you call "working backwards" is known as transformation or morphism, includes identity and many other properties. The basic idea of connecting object properties with their identity  is known as "strong reference" and was originally proposed by Chris Partridge (who had occasionally contributed to this forum). He had also given a special role to reified binary relations that he called "tuple places". I have further advanced notion of "strong reference" by proposing specific method of making it computable.
...
>
FK>The reason is siemple, we have a differet set of experience and knowlede not to mention the drastic difference of speaking different native tongues.

I don't think our native tongues are so different (I can probably understand the meaning of my last name)

FK>But there is no coherent model or theory of how we get to our concepts, not even at the core level where we start off from nothing, and gradually enlarge our experience classified in three basic categoris - but not static, not as a picture, but as a process or procedure of the mental operatons
properly identiified and sorted in sequence or cycles. That is waht I wouldlike to share with in a project but none is so far serioulsy interested, which does not bother me, you are loosing out on that.

There is nothing to be interested in. On one hand you are saying "there is no coherent model", on the other hand you are proposing an incoherent model of yours, as a proof perhaps. Is that supposed to be interesting? I think a coherent model of "how we get our concepts" is very close or even available today. We can't be sure until it is fully applied and tested.

FK>I need to contradict you. As soon as you start thinking in terms of creating your concepts in a set manner, data, operations data, you will have Rubki's cube problem multilied starting off from upper levle and going down to epcifics of everyday objects in yout onlotlogy tree.
>

Are you re-inventing a "naive" set theory? In that case you may want to skip a few well-known paradoxes and chose between three or more mature set theories (I let experts to speak about it). In any case none of existing set theories can be connected directly to "ontology tree" (at least to my knowledge)




_________________________________________________________________
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)