On Sat, June 8, 2013 11:47, Patrick Cassidy wrote:
> Tara Athan inquired:
> [TA] > In this thread, there is a position being defended that it is
>> useful to
>> consider a concept that includes both physical and social laws. One of
>> the arguments supporting this position is that there is a continuum of
>> laws between the physical and the social. This argument would be more
>> convincing if the missing link were produced: can we give an example
>> of a law whose consequences are produced by both physical and
>> social means? (01)
> The thread does discuss the relation between those laws, but I don't think
> anyone argued that it is actually *useful* (i.e. has a practical utility)
> to lump them together.
> Nevertheless, in COSMO, I find it *convenient* (with no
> discernable utility other than compactness of representation) to include
> both physical and social rules under a single category of "Rule", which is
> a "Proposition" created by an "IntelligentAgent". (02)
What is the need for the "Rule" to be created by an "IntelligentAgent"?
Why not bring that requirement down a level to apply to social "rules"? (03)
> The big difference is that the "IntelligentAgent" that created the
> "LawOfNature" in COSMO is not a human,
> but the individual "MotherNature" which is a placeholder (04)
Such a placeholder is an anthropomorphizing of something that
may well not exist. (05)
> for whatever entity created the physical universe, (06)
Why assume a creator? (07)
Would COSMO accept the Big Bang as "MotherNature"? Would it
accept a previous universe as "MotherNature"? (08)
The name "MotherNature" suggests to me that there is an assumption
that this entity currently exists. If that is the intent, it assigns an
additional property to the universal creator -- one which a human
has no way of knowing is correct or not. (09)
> ... And the critical consequence is that humans can change
> human rules, but can't change any "LawOfNature",
> so they are very different things. (010)
One could reach the same conclusion from social rules having
creators but having the property lacking for "LawOfNature". (011)
> For human Rules and their subtype, "Laws", there must be
> an "Authority" that creates the rule and can enforce it by
> causing some negative consequence for infraction. (012)
Of course, this does not apply to a "LawOfNature". (013)
> As others
> point out, breaking a human Rule merely makes on[e]
> *liable* for some punishment, but does not guarantee
> punishment. (014)
What is the punishment for breaking a rule of solitaire?
-- guilty self-knowledge? (015)
> Even so, in COSMO, "liability for punishment" is itself considered
> as a "negative consequence", so that *any* infraction of a Rule
> will have at least that kind of negative consequence, and possibly worse. (016)
Except in cases without a liability for punishment. (017)
> The type of negative consequence depends on the type of rule. ...
>
> One may for some purposes consider the "laws of nature" in
> possible worlds, such as virtual reality programs,
> to be of the same category as the "Laws of Nature"
> of our real world, but in that case, it will be some human that
> created those laws. (018)
It is an entity outside the context in which the rule is applicable.
It is not a human in the context of the rule. (019)
> I haven't tried representing those in COSMO yet, there
> are still more basic matters to attend to.
>
> The relation between humans and Laws of Nature is that humans try to
> *discover* the Laws of Nature, and may form theories about
> what those Laws of Nature are. (020)
Agreed. (021)
> But the theory is not itself a Law of Nature, just a more or
> less well-informed guess about the actual Law of Nature. (022)
Agreed. (023)
> I haven't found any reason to include the notion that a human law
> makes a "prediction". The only "prediction" I can imagine is that
> someone *may* be punished for infraction. (024)
Another prediction would be that people would tend to obey
the law if they are knowledgeable of the law and respect that
law. (025)
> But as we know, even innocent people are punished
> by error, so I prefer merely to assert that infraction creates a
> *liability* for punishment, or more accurately,
> *increases* one's liability for punishment. (026)
Agreed. (027)
-- doug foxvog (028)
> Pat
>
> Patrick Cassidy
> MICRA Inc.
> cassidy@xxxxxxxxx
> 908-561-3416
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tara Athan
> Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 10:00 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Laws: physical and social
>
> In this thread, there is a position being defended that it is useful to
> consider a concept that includes both physical and social laws. One of
> the arguments supporting this position is that there is a continuum of
> laws between the physical and the social. This argument would be more
> convincing if the missing link were produced: can we give an example of
> a law whose consequences are produced by both physical and social means?
>
> One example I can think of is certain cases of the parenting technique
> of "logical consequences", such as a child having to clean up a mess
> s/he makes, or repair something that was damaged.
>
> Such consequences also occur in commerce - if a contractor builds a road
> that is substandard, they may be required to repair it at their own
> cost. That cost is not set by a court, but is determined by the physical
> situation - the nature and extent of the road defects relative to the
> specifications.
>
> In these cases, the natural, physical consequences are inflicted upon
> secondary parties, so the social system (parents or legal system)
> intervenes to minimize the secondary impact and transfer it back to the
> primary actor.
>
> Certain fields, for example ecological economics, study similar problems
> at a macroeconomic level.
>
> Tara
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|