[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Conjunction and Disjunction

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 23:43:28 -0400
Message-id: <4A4ECFE0.5040005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
John B, Rob, and Rich,    (01)

First, let me start with an easy question:    (02)

JB> And, can we really separate the logic from the ontology?    (03)

Yes.  They are different subjects.    (04)

JB> Sentences in conversation occur in order for good reasons,
 > to indicate sequence or time.    (05)

Yes.  As I said before, if the sentences occur in a narrative,
you would connect them by "and then" instead of just "and".    (06)

But in any case, "p and then q" implies "p and q".    (07)

JB> Aristotle points out that we all come into logic with
 > pre-existent knowledge (PeK).    (08)

Yes.  But that knowledge is not the logic.  If we're talking
about logic, we're talking about logic.   But if we want to
discuss all the issues that come to bear on NL understanding,
we have to be prepared for an enormous number of issues.    (09)

RA> Consider:
 > Paul goes to the bathroom.
 > Wanda goes to the bathroom.    (010)

Why do you ask?  The relevant background knowledge is
different, and it has different implications.  But there
is no difference in the relevant logic.    (011)

RC> ... almost as an aside, you tossed out:
 > But I would add an important qualification:  Many theories,
 > especially in physics, have been established on the basis
 > of so many observations, that it is practically impossible
 > to recreate all their conclusions by using multiple analogies.    (012)

I wanted to clarify a different point, but it seems to have
triggered more digressions:    (013)

RC> But it clearly wasn't "practically impossible" to use multiple
 > analogies, which existed in the conversations of the scientists
 > of that time.    (014)

Yes.  Physicists use analogies all the time.  The only point
I was trying to make with that sentence is that a good theory
can reduce the number of analogies that would have been necessary
if that theory did not exist.    (015)

John    (016)

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    (017)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>