[Top] [All Lists]

[ontolog-forum] do not trust quantifiers

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 00:20:46 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <450051.24535.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


I do not trust quantifiers in syllogisms aither.

As an object consists of form and content and content is a list of properties of the object, and because a concept is broken down into two lists, an extension and an intension (further associated with verbally not expressed expressed) and becasue on an encounter with a new object and familiarizing with it to a certain extent, and because such an object is seen as specific and generic at the same time, meaning that an automatic conclusion is generated and will be exploited in the next round of encounters, we first have a list of properties of a specific object which is the same as the object seen as a generic one

Eg. All the taxi drivers are like Lee (a taxi driver we have just met) it is not possible to see how the lists of extension and intentsion will grow on acquiring further experience without a foul proof system of recording the relate transactions with their changes caused in „knowledge” . And this is also true of scientific facts where all may mean a sample and just a few individual not justifing the use of quantifiers such as all, etc.

And then in most NLs you have different forms to express generic and specific, plural form of countable nouns and an indefinite article plus countable noun mean about the same thing (leaving you in doubts as far as a specific individual or the number (count) is concerned – in many case just as hazy as all. The concept of type and a kind of are not much help either in identification so you have levitating objects all the time.


Questions to Doug


Physical objects have spatio-temporal properties as well as mass. 

Mental constructs have temporal properties, but neither spatial nor mass.


Why should have all objects mass?

Situations have temporal properties and physical situations have physical
objects as physical participants. 


What is a situation? Are all physical objects physical participants?

[Non-physical situations have only non-physical participants, such as the static situation of a sick leave account having 15 days in it or the event of a law expiring.]

Is a sick leave account and 15 days in it one object? Is it a generic object?

Is the event of law expiring complete or specific without a date?


An illness is a physical event.  A "form of illness" is a subclass of
Illness, which is a subclass of Physical Event. 


It may be so subject to the terminology (definitions) of your ontology.

It appears that illness is a physical event as well as a class with sublasses (forms of illness). What are the members of the class physical events? Boundaries? Extension? Intension?

What is an event? By definition, in verbal terms that make sense and may be visualized as it suggests to be “real”, taking place in spacetime.


Thanks, Ferenc


Both the organism that is sick and the illness are spatio-temporal things, and thus have a
location, starting time, and ending times (as well as other properties
of spatio-temporal things).  The organism is also a physical object, and
thus has mass (as well as other properties of physical objects).  The
illness is also an event and thus has a doer and an object acted on (as
well as other properties of events).

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)

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