----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy (01)
> On Jul 6, 2011, at 1:38 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
>> John wrote: "And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of
>> nature
>> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
>> foundation for a "standard ontology".
>> Agree. Here are five methodogical rules from the standard ontology:
>> 1. Class is determined by a single property;
>> 2. Kind is determined by a set of properties;
>
> Unless you give us a theory of properties, this is not a useful
> distinction. It seems at least to follow that every Class is a Kind. For
> if class C is determined by property P, then kind K is determined by set
> {P}. And every Kind is a class if, for any set S of properties, it
> follows that there is a property that is the conjunction of S. Do you
> have a theory of properties on which these apparent implications do, or do
> not, follow?
AA: Again, we need to start from classification - what kinds of properties
exist: formal properties (attributes and predicates) or substantial
properties (real properties); intrinsic, mutual, permanent, transient,
emergent, simple, complex properties, or compound properties as property of
properties, like "stress tensor". By default, in any sound classification,
the property to be used is a simple or basic property. The more basic
property the more common it is. A theory of properties is better to develop
as a theory of state space, an aggregate of properties.
>
>> 3. Natural Kind is determined by a set of lawfully related properties
>> (laws);
>
> What makes two properties "lawfully related"?
AA: If they are substantial properties, a mutual causal relationship, not a
correlation. For the formal properties, an IFF relationship of necessity and
sufficiency.
>
>> 4. Natural Genus is the set of things sharing a basic law;
>
> What is it for two things to "share a basic law"? And what makes a law
> basic?
The behavior of things is regulated by the same law, like the gravitation
law in physics or social laws in the realm of human beings. Imagine the tree
of properties (with its pyramid of classes of entities), the most common and
fundamental property makes its root, preceding all other properties, like
intelligence/knowledge for human and artificial beings.
>
>> 5. Natural Species is the set of things sharing a particular law.
>
> What is it for two things to "share a particular law"?
AA: It means the same special law is applied to these things, making their
specific nature, being the rule/necessity for their behavior, while the very
existence is defned by fundamental laws. Particular laws, derived from the
basic law, have narrower scope of activity and operation.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (02)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (03)
|