ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fu

To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Matthew West" <dr.matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 08:32:18 +0100
Message-id: <4e27d606.4ccfe30a.61a0.35cc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear Doug,    (01)

> > Something being intentional does not mean it cannot be extensional also.
> 
> > Take for example the paperweight on my desk. I found it as a nice round
> > stone on the beach, and I intentionally decided it would make a good
paper
> > weight. Are you saying it therefore ceases to be an extensional object
> > because it is intentionally created as a paperweight?
> 
> This seems to be reversed from the computer ontological meanings of
> "intensional" and "extensional".  An "intensional" claass is defined by
its
> properties, while an "extensional" class is defined as comprising the
> objects that are specified as members.  Thus the stone you found was
> a member of the intensional class, BeachPebble (and of all its
superclasses)
> while you added it to the extent of the Paperweight class.    (02)

MW: "intentional" is not the same as "intensional". Intentional means it is
created as an act of will (like the paperweight or an agreement) whilst
intensional means a class that is defined by its properties, and which may
not be extensional because , for example, different memberships exist at
different times.    (03)

MW: With individuals, defined by extension means their spatio-temporal
extent, rather than membership as with sets.    (04)

> 
> John was referring to the creation of possible worlds to produce models
for
> proving something.  Such models are populated with instances (extents of
> various classes) in order to prove/demonstrate something about a world
> outside the generated possible world.  His argument is that the parameters
> that you used to create the possible world, could be used to demonstrate
> whatever was demonstrated by the possible world.    (05)

MW: I say nothing about the extensionality of alternatives to possible
worlds. Only that possible worlds are defined by their spatio-temporal
extent. It is a matter of conjecture whether those possible worlds are real
or imaginary.
> 
> > As far as possible worlds is concerned you should also look at
multiverses
> > (Hugh Everett). This is becoming quite a respectable theory in physics
> > that the different possibilities really happen from a quantum level
> > upwards. So they do not necessarily exist just in someone's imagination.
> 
> But such multiverses, in my understanding, are intrinsically undetectable
> from our universe and can not affect it.  Therefore, they have no
> predictive value and thus could be considered non-scientific.  It is
> similarly impossible to prove that the universe did not come into
existence
> a millisecond ago (with all particles having positions and momenta that
> suggest a universe of an age of ~14 billion years.    (06)

MW: Now that is a statement I would consider unscientific.
> 
> Neither theory is useful for an ontological description of any given
> state of affairs that is not specifically dealing with such a theory.    (07)

MW: Interesting then that I have found them to be extremely useful in
practical situations.    (08)

Regards    (09)

Matthew West                            
Information  Junction
Tel: +44 1489 880185
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/    (010)

This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.    (011)


> 
> -- doug foxvog
> 
> 
> > Regards
> > Matthew West
> 
> > Information  Junction
> > Tel: +44 1489 880185
> > Mobile: +44 750 3385279
> >
> > Skype: dr.matthew.west
> >
> >  <mailto:matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> >  <http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/>
> > http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
> >
> >  <http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/> http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
> >
> >
> >
> > This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in
England
> > and Wales No. 6632177.
> >
> > Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City,
> > Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> > sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: 19 July 2011 11:17
> > To: [ontolog-forum]
> > Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most
classifications
> > are fuzzy)
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Matthew,
> >
> > The point I'm trying to make is that possible worlds don't exist.  They
> > are
> > imaginary.  The way you imagine them is to create some hypothesis,
theory,
> > axioms, or specifications that generate them.
> >
> > The so-called extensional methods are superfluous.  Whatever hypothesis
> > you
> > formed to generate the possible worlds contains all the information
> > necessary to derive whatever conclusion you could get by analyzing the
set
> > of worlds.
> >
> > In short, the starting  hypothesis is intensional.  The possible worlds
> > are
> > useless baggage.  They might give you some pleasure in your imagination.
> > They might even be useful as illustrations.  But the method of forming
the
> > initial specification for the worlds is intensional.
> >
> > John
> 
> 
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org
> 
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
>     - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> =============================================================
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (012)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (013)

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