ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:12:24 -0500 <4996FB78.6010200@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Ali,    (01) Tarski wrote many papers on geometry. As his biography says, he had taught high-school geometry for several years. (In the 1920s, there weren't many jobs for logicians.)    (02) > I should say that I'm familiar with Tarski's work as well, though > on a digression, I thought he committed to points, and nothing > else, not vanishingly small spheres, i'll have to look over his > axioms again.    (03) That's true of Tarski's more familiar axioms for Euclidean geometry.    (04) His 1929 paper is the one that shows how points can be defined as limiting cases of nested spheres. That means you don't have to assume that points, lines, and spheres "truly exist" in nature.    (05) You can think of tiny spheres (or blobs) as the building blocks of physical objects. Then the points, lines, and planes of Euclidean geometry can be considered computationally useful (but imaginary) approximations.    (06) We use such approximations in every field. Anybody who studied physics "knows" that relativity and quantum mechanics are more accurate than Newtonian mechanics. But for most applications, the Newtonian formulas are much easier to compute, and they're accurate to more decimal places than we can measure.    (07) So when we talk about "ontological commitment", we have to distinguish what we "really believe" from what we assume as a computable approximation.    (08) And by the way, this illustrates another reason why a single universal ontology would not be used for practical applications. To be truly universal, the ontology would have to be stated at the most fundamental level possible. But that level is likely to be too complex for practical computation. (Just look at quantum electrodynamics or string theory, for example.)    (09) Therefore, we inevitably get a multiplicity of approximations for different purposes. So even if the physicists discovered a Grand Unified Theory, the engineers would still be using many inconsistent approximations.    (010) John    (011) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (012) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Matthew West [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Александр Шкотин Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, FERENC KOVACS Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, FERENC KOVACS Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Randall R Schulz Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Александр Шкотин Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ravi Sharma Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Ali Hashemi Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic, Azamat