|From:||Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Fri, 3 Oct 2014 18:24:30 -0700|
Not the case Leo, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of Logicism and Pure Mathematics. Logicism, in particular, seeks to eliminate "psychologism" and physics in favor of formal construction (iow, the language game of algebra). There is no bridge constructed between Pure Mathematics the Physical Sciences. This IS the role that Benjamin Peirce envisioned for Logic and led his son Charles Sanders Peirce to pose and investigate Logic as Semeiotic Theory.
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
One exception may be the foundations of mathematics (and logic) such as Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory (ZFC) or variants, if you buy into them. Or perhaps some category theory equivalent. This was/is the dream of many foundationalists, going back to Russell (notwithstanding Goedel). Is this ontology? Well, yes, depending on how you slice logic/ontology.
_________________________________________________________________ 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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR, Mark H Linehan|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR, Rich Cooper|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR, Obrst, Leo J.|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|