Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth

[ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Leo

The relationship of language and ontology in the link provided is very relevant to the notion of how we might differential notion of Truth depending on whether say we understand Kant or Fregge etc.

How do we formalize our understanding without narrow confinement to only mathematical logic (even though the mathematical foundations in that form of logic are sufficient for many deep physics theories, experiments and also e.g. astrophysics - relating to current models of universe or elementary particles, thermodynamics, etc)?

 

Doug

Your explanation is logical, however, I do not have to explain (other than those who believe that 2 is True) to any one outside as to what 2 is even as a concept? Then only we ca say 2+2 and then there have to be those who believe that 4 is True. What I was coming to was that 0, 1, whole number and infinite as well as innumerable as concepts do these have to be understood as language or culture related concepts. At elementary school level we can say 1 is an apple, 2 are eyes, 5 fingers etc but as progression to numbers or whole and fractional numbers, what are the founding concepts that must be True in languages before we advance to relationship between these concepts such as equality or absence as 'zero' although it is not the same as either void or vacuum?

 

John

I read a bit of what you wrote for me and Avril and my inquiry is as to what should we understand in language that would then help us understand 2+2=4. Is it necessary to know 0 or 1 prior to mechanics of math or deeper understanding?

 

 

Regards.

Ravi

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John,

One issue with this approach is that you thereby reduce ontology to logic. I think there is reason (and value) to consider both of these subject areas distinct, if related.

Ontologists use "universal" and "particular" because these technical terms are important to their exposition of what ontology is. Cf. the "Logic and Ontology" entry at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/.

Similarly, I would oppose a reduction of formal semantics (natural language and otherwise) to logic or ontology, though they are related.

Thanks,
Leo

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 1:09 PM
To: Avril Styrman
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth

On 6/29/2012 12:34 PM, Avril Styrman wrote:
> Then again, properties and particulars are needed in ontologies which
> directly concern the measurable reality.

I agree.  My point, though, is that you don't need the words
'property' or 'particular' when you develop or use an ontology.

Those words are useful when you compare the theories of different
philosophers.  But when you are developing a formal ontology, you use
some formal logic to express it.  To discuss the ontology, you never
need to use any terms other than the words for the syntactic units
of the logic you use.

If you're using FOL, the only words you need are 'function', relation',
'variable', and 'value' (of a variable).   If you're using Common Logic,
the values of a variable can include functions and relations.

I disagree with Quine's attempt to eliminate abstract entities, but I
am willing to accept his famous dictum:

   To be is to be the value of a quantified variable.

In other words, the entities that exist in your ontology are identical
to the things you can refer to by variables in the logic you used to
express the ontology.

My recommendation is to use the same terms to talk about the things
in your ontology that you would use to refer to whatever your logic
is able to express.

This convention drastically simplifies the verbiage you use to talk
about your ontology, and it clarifies talk about what exists.

John

_________________________________________________________________
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


_________________________________________________________________
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

-- 
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)