[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] new logic

To: paoladimaio10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:35:05 -0500
Message-id: <4B036B69.2050906@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Paola,    (01)

I've been talking about the open-ended variety of logics, paradigms,
language games, and theories in many different terms.  So it's not
easy to find them by looking for one set of key words.    (02)

PDM> ... have been looking for the thread, but could not find it
 > found this instead, where you said:    (03)

JFS>> The "logic" in any book of any kind is somebody's theory
 >> about how people can, do, or should reason.  Nobody really
 >> has a good theory about how people actually reason.  That's
 >> still a major research question.    (04)

I also use the term "language game" as a broader category,
which includes logics as special cases.  In fact, that is
the path Wittgenstein took toward his later philosophy.
His first book, the _Tractatus_, used a version of first
order logic as the model for natural language semantics.    (05)

But in his revised version of 1929-30, his Philosophical
Remarks (Bemerkungen), W. began to talk about the rules of
mathematics and logic as a kind of "game".  He introduced
the idea of an open ended family of Satzsysteme (propositional
systems) each with one or more Beweissysteme (proof systems).
That is already an open-ended family of logics.    (06)

In his later philosophy, beginning in the mid 1930s and to the
end of his life, W. talked about language games primarily in
the sense of ways of using the syntax and vocabulary of natural
languages.  But his writings of the intermediate stage show
that he viewed the later language games as an outgrowth and
an extension of the single logic/game of his first book.    (07)

If you go to Google and type "Sowa" and "language games", you'll
get over 2000 hits (not all by me, but many of them are).    (08)

If you want an overview of the main directions I've been
emphasizing, I suggest the slides for the following three
lectures, which I presented in March 2008:    (09)

    Three lectures on semantic technology    (010)

The first page has the abstracts of each talk, which show very
clearly that I am highly critical of any approach with just a
single logic and a single ontology.    (011)

Following are a few papers in which I talk about the need to go
beyond a single logic and/or a single language game:    (012)

    The challenge of knowledge soup    (013)

    Signs, processes, and language games    (014)

    Two paradigms are better than one, and
    multiple paradigms are even better    (015)

    A dynamic theory of ontology    (016)

I have also talked about using a very general version of FOL,
such as CL, to represent other kinds of logics.  That makes it
possible to adapt more familiar reasoning methods to a wider
range of logics.  Following are two papers that address those
issues:    (017)

    Laws, facts, and contexts:  foundations for
    multimodal reasoning    (018)

    Worlds, models, and descriptions    (019)

In the following paper, I talk about conceptual graphs and
their mapping to Common Logic, but I also talk about the
research extensions that support a much wider range of
logics:    (020)

    Conceptual graphs    (021)

If you don't have time to go through all that reading,
the slides for the three lectures give a reasonable
overview of the main themes.    (022)

John    (023)

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    (024)

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