[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Avril Styrman" <Avril.Styrman@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 13:03:56 +0300
Message-id: <20120928130356.18026gjkrucan2fg.astyrman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Lainaus "John F Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Before criticizing mereology, I want to say that I consider it
> a useful alternative to set theory for many aspects of ontology.    (01)

I fully agree that e.g. as a definition of a flat part, mereology does  
all that is required, in a simpler way than set theory, and thus is  
better than set theory. Also, as a definition of what is continuous,  
continuous mereology is a lot simpler than set theory which can be  
used as a foundation continuous point-sets, and thus mereology is  
better. A better question is that why do we need 'continuity' in the  
first place in modeling finite and discrete phenomena?    (02)

Apart from all this, set theory is not all bad. When we take  
transfinities and the empty set away, the empirically applicable  
'structural' features are revealed: set theory can be used in modeling  
granular structures that are found all around in nature. If mereology  
is used in modeling granular structures, then mereology will in any  
case have to be complemented with the epsilon/memberOf relation, or  
with some corresponding relation that does the job of epsilon.    (03)

-Avril    (04)

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    (05)

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