On Jan 6, 2009, at 12:58 PM, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Ed,
> The point you miss is that the foundation ontology does not need
> to take
> a stance on **any** theories that are contradictory, it merely needs
> to
> provide the conceptual vocabulary with which to **describe**
> theories people
> build. Alternative theories can be represented in extensions to the
> foundation ontology ... (01)
I think Ed's point is that there is no realistic hope of such a thing
as THE foundational ontology (unless you take it to be first-order
logic, i.e., the theory whose only theorems are logical truths and
whose only primitives are boolean operators and quantifiers). (02)
> I view the foundation ontology as the set of concept representations
> that do *not* depend on models for which there are disputed
> alternatives... (03)
Yep, that sounds like first-order logic all right! ;-) (04)
-chris (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|