So your ontology contains relationships.
and yours too....
Do the dependency relationships (as relationships) also have some "logic they rely upon for their existence"?
And is there an infinite regression or does this stop somewhere?
I dont know, but as relationships are logical expressions
Er... no. Relationships (AKA "relations') are in the world. The relation(ship) of being to the north of
isn't a logical _expression_, its something that holds between (actual) things with positions on the surface of the (actual) Earth. Now, of course, we use expressions to describe and talk about relationships, just as we do about anything; I used the English words "being to the north of", above, to refer to the this very relationship. But the words are not the thing; and Chris here is talking about things, not words. Logical expressions are just the logical equivalent of English words and sentences, of course.
I cant see where this would stop, although I think there may be some
exceptions, I d have to think a bit (busy now)
The reason I ask is that I prefer an ontology where relationship only depend
upon what they relate - without any need for a logic.
any form of dependency is a relationship
Well, that is debatable, as taken literally it leads to an infinite regress. But leaving that aside...
, thus relies on logic too
... no, that does not follow. Relationships do not rely on, or even presuppose, a logic. Even if there were no language-using creatures in the universe, and hence no language and hence no logics, still some things would be further north than others. The relationship would hold between the things, even if nothing had ever mentioned it or described it.
you may acnowledge that, or ignore that, ...
Or, of course, deny it.
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile