Here is yet another change just today in the physics of how the
universe is expanding:
http://natmonitor.com/2015/04/12/is-the-universe-expanding-as-fast-as-we-thought-stunning-new-study-says-no/
NM> They found that color
differences between the two groups of supernovae can explain some of the
perceived acceleration, meaning that there isn't as much acceleration as
previously believed.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
West
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2015 2:22 PM
To: 'Thomas Johnston'; '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10
Dear Thomas,
MW>] I take logical
existence to mean the things you can talk about, which is different from do
things exist in the sense of being able to kick them.
Ah, I take it that you
are alluding to Dr. Johnson's refutation of Berkeley's idealist metaphysics.
1) Do prime numbers
and compassion exist as more than "things you can talk about"? You
certainly can't kick them. Do they not exist at all, then? Do they exist in
some sense that is less "real" than the sense in which things you can
kick exist?
2) For anything that
has more than "logical existence", how do we discover anything about
it that we can then talk about? How can we "see" what things are like
independently of the perceptual gestalts (in the case of sense-data-accessible
objects) and the conceptual gestalts that we use to think about them and make
judgments about them? And if we can't see what things are like independently of
these gestalts, then how can we say anything at all about what they are like --
really like, independent of the distorting effects of our gestalts?
This takes us back to
Kant, who concluded that we could say nothing about the thing-in-itself (the
ding-an-sich). And then on to the German Idealists who concluded that, in that
case, why distinguish between things as we judge them to be and things as they
are in themselves? Why not just drop the ding-an-sich?
So, mutatis mutandis,
why distinguish between "logical existence" and "things
exist(ing) in the sense of being able to kick them"?
3) Supposing you want
to make the distinction regardless, to what use would you put it? How would
holding that distinction cause an ontology engineer to build different things
than he would have built had he not held that distinction?
[MW>]
There are different ways people use the word, depending on context. This causes
confusion. It is therefore worth noting what gives rise to this confusion. What
I call logical existence is the one that is relevant to ontology. As you say,
the others matter relatively little in that context, except they might be part
of some identity criteria.
Regards
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
+44 750 338 5279
I think the real
question is “What does it mean to exist in a logical context?”
LO> I think Quine had it
mostly right, as Thomas mentioned, because he (Quine) tried to connect the
semantics to the underlying ontological referents (once again, as many have
tried) by using logic and the objects quantified over. However, I don’t think
that is quite right, since at least to my mind, you can quantify over notions
that you don’t really think exist, ever or even potentially (and so logic is a
language for describing, not a language for telling you what there is).
However, logic does allow you to have access to those things, and if you
quantify over them, then they are at least candidates for real things, i.e,
they provide a kind of low level entry for ontological commitment. So an
ontology is a logical theory, yes, but about something in the real world. The
“logical theory” part of that is easier than the “real world” part.
[MW>] I take logical
existence to mean the things you can talk about, which is different from do
things exist in the sense of being able to kick them.
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|