Matthew,
I was unaware that Category Theory was distinct from logic.
My point (and the one I think Paolo was making) is that while the physical relationship between your desk and computer is independent of logic, your account of the fact that your desk and computer are in said relation appeals to some form of, if not logic, then coherency.
So a philosophical discussion of ontology, while perhaps not writ in a formal logic, nonetheless uses some form of coherency - similarly a mathematical argument, or really any account which has a claim to reproducibility.
And i agree that in general, one ought not fit the problem to match the language available; yet the unifying feature of any descriptor, is again, this appeal to coherency, no?
Ali
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Ali,
While I agree that one need not
appeal to logic, I believe that the coherency of most descriptions may be cast
in terms of logic.
[MW] Of course!
Whether this would always yield
a useful characterization of the subject at hand is another issue. But my
intuition suggests that almost any account can be described, and particularly
the coherency of any account may be represented in some form of logic.
[MW] Indeed, but may
be is a long way from necessarily is.
I have a hard time determining the coherency of anything without an appeal, at
some level, to some logic.
[MW] Try Category
Theory. Tough to get into, but it really is an alternative.
Regards
Matthew West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered
in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden
City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
Ali
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Ali,
I would add:
That we are communicating with others. And particularly, in this context, you
are creating an account of the fact that your computer is on your desk.
The other, in interpreting your (ideally)
coherent account, is likely using some form of logic. In fact, it is quite
likely, that anyone reconstructing or considering your account of what is (was), will use a formal logic to judge much of its
merits (however they are defined for the tasks at
hand).
[MW]
One of the points I am trying to make is that logic is not the only available
choice for representation, therefore my account is not necessarily
"logical" in that sense. Category Theory, for example, provides an
alternative.
Regards
Matthew
West
Information Junction
Tel: +44 560 302 3685
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from
Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside,
Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
Cheers,
Ali
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 8:30 AM, Matthew West <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear Paola,
That my computer is on my desk is a relationship that has nothing to do with
logic, and I would describe as physical rather than logical if I were
pushed.
But this is really off even what I thought we were discussing. You seem to
be saying that because relationships are described in logic, that therefore
they are necessarily logical. The point I am trying to make is that
relationships can be described without using logic, but some other
formalism, and so relationships are not therefore necessarily logical.
> Sent: 23 January 2009 18:35
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
>
> Hi Matthew
>
> > OK. Can you say what it is about them that makes them logical then?
>
> I really do not intend to clog the list with circular statements or
> off topic. My comment was in reply to the suggestion that logic and
> ontology are not related, while obviously they are, although they are
> related in many different ways.
>
> Whether this is a lexical or philosophical issue, I am not sure, and
> thats what motivates much of the ontology work that many of us do,
> that is, reconcile different truths and different points of view
>
> I dont know what makes logic logical, when I asked this question
> before I was answered that 'science does answer such questions'
>
> To be answered sensibly may benefit from an interdisciplinary
> approach, and there may no short answer, but I ll be happy to hear
> suggestions
>
> However, since you are in a quiz mood (Friday night?) perhaps you can
> provide examples of relationships in any ontology of your
choice
> that are either logical or not logical, and explain why that is so.
>
> Apologies if I may have to delay possible follow ups to this
> conversation til I come back from a long overseas trip that will keep
> me connected only briefly when traveling....
>
> best
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Matthew West
> > Information Junction
> > Tel: +44 560 302 3685
> > Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> > matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> > This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
> England
> > and Wales No. 6632177.
> > Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> > Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
> >> Sent: 23 January 2009 16:01
> >> To: [ontolog-forum]
> >> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> >> standards
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Could you give some examples of non-logical relationships
for
> >> instance?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Not at all, and thay is precisely the point
> >>
> >> relationships are logical statements
> >> since ontologies are made of relationships, then logical
statements
> are
> >> implicit
> >>
> >> that's was my original comments to CP post,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paola Di Maio
> >> **********************************
> >>
> >> Forthcoming
> >>
> >> i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-
> >> semantics.tugraz.at
> >>
> >> SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
> >> http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/RegistrationSEMAPRO09.html
> >>
> >> _________________________________________________________________
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> **********************************
>
> Forthcoming
>
> i-Semantics 2009, 2 - 4 September 2009, Graz, Austria. www.i-
> semantics.tugraz.at
>
> SEMAPRO 2009, Malta
> http://www.iaria.org/conferences2009/RegistrationSEMAPRO09.html
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________
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
--
(•`'·.¸(`'·.¸(•)¸.·'´)¸.·'´•) .,.,
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|