Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx>]

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.

Then of course for science, to gauge/adjudicate scientific theories, one gets into philosophy of science issues such as theory succinctness, domain coverage, easy/sound linkage to best other scientific theories (bridging), etc. Does this apply to ontology? Yes.

Thanks,
Leo

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Friday, October 03, 2014 3:07 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology vs KR
>

>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...
>
>I agree.
>
>> I agree that there are no truly fundamental elements that are
>> undisputedly  part of (or consistent with) all theories.
>
>Yes.
>
>> I must say I don't understand the idea "fundamental representation" at all.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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

_________________________________________________________________
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)