On 10/3/2014 1:56 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> I would say instead that every theory has its own fundamental elements
> (semantic primitives). If the theory is accepted by others, its
> fundamental elements become elements of their elaborated theories... (01)
I agree. (02)
> I agree that there are no truly fundamental elements that are
> undisputedly part of (or consistent with) all theories. (03)
Yes. (04)
> I must say I don't understand the idea "fundamental representation" at all. (05)
Since there is no known theory that has any claim to be the final
answer to every question, the word 'fundamental' must be relative
to the foundation of one fallible theory or another. (06)
You could say that one foundation goes down to a deeper level than
another in some particular field. But nobody knows (a) how many
fields there are, (b) whether any of them are bottomless, or
(c) if any have a bottom, how far down it may be. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|