[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] do not trust quantifiers

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 10:48:49 +0000 (GMT)
Message-id: <923963.4803.qm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Rich,



They are defined as alternative values for a single domain, which can take on the Thing values of either object or situation.  In pseudopascal, you might write


Type TThing            = (          ttObject,          ttSituation ).


Type TThingDomain = ( tdThingObject, tdThingSituation ).


You may notice that I like using Hungarian notation; the “td” prefix identifies these two values as types of Thing and Domain, sequentially – a useful memory jogger. 

 FK. Fine


Since they are primitive values - they are their own nominals, in that sense.  So a Thing can take on the value of an object or a situation, depending on your viewpoint.  The next observer might see them differently, for example, she might think


Type TThingDomain = ( tdThingSituation, tdThingObject ).


So it is necessary to distinguish the Observer from the Thing observed, in my experimentally unfolding ontology.  Note that the two observers we have identified (though not named or defined) can be named as arbitrarily as


Yes, indeed.


Type TObserver     = ( toObjectSituation, toSituationObject ).


Which I personally read “objects before situations”, and “situations before objects”.  


FK: Yes, the sequence is crucial. Just as mental operations (folding) are. (think of the properties of arithmetic operations in terms of other operations (relations), rather than properties!)  But all sane people would accept that they are smaller than the object (universe) around them, hence they are in it, whereas what they see is reflected in their mind as smaller than in reality. And if Object (the external world) is object (observer) relation (verb, abstraction) (object x relation x property=primitive concepts)

But it is not just sequence, but point of view of observation. Think of some small objects in space. A cube would look to you as a plane, a surface. Go round it, you have six different views (may be of different colour, remember Rubik's cube). Do that with a ball - you get the same pattern from every angle.

Compare this analysis with the subject of topic and focus (comment) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topic-comment


So far, nice and simple, but expandable, without any requirements other than that the two observers differ only in the sequence with which they observe Things.

I am not sure that I can follow you thoroughly, correct me, if Iam off the track




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>