ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" ravi sharma Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:10:58 -0400
 LeoThe 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)?  DougYour 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?  JohnI 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.RaviOn Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Obrst, Leo J. 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) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, doug foxvog Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, William Frank Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Len Yabloko Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Ron Wheeler Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Avril Styrman Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Obrst, Leo J. Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, ravi sharma <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, John F Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Truth, Christopher Menzel