Dear John,
Another problematic category is possibilia (things that might be, or
possibly are in some parallel universe). I'm not sure whether you would
consider these to be abstract or not. It can be argued either that they are
figments of the imagination, or that they are as concrete as we are in some
other universe.
I have been asked my position on this on more than one occasion. My answer
is that I can't know and I don't care. The criteria for including possibilia
(or not) is utility vs the baggage that comes with the extra commitment. (01)
Regards (02)
Matthew West
Information Junction
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England
and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire,
SG6 2SU. (03)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: 27 April 2015 23:09
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Watch out Watson: Here comes Amazon Machine
Learning - ZDNet - 2015.04.10 (04)
Ed, (05)
Those issues have been debated for centuries, and attempts to use modern
logic have left them as confused as ever. (06)
EJB
> "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt
> of in your philosophy", he is only saying that his personal UoD for
> reasoning about observed events includes things that Horatio's colder
> realism does not. (07)
Alonzo Church and Willard Van Orman Quine are two logician- philosophers who
were well versed in modern logic and science. (08)
Quine was a strict nominalist who tried to get rid of abstract entities.
Church was a "realist" (in the Scholastic sense) who made a strong case for
admitting them into the UoD, the scientific realm, and everyday "common
sense". (09)
I cited Church's article about the ontological status of women and abstract
entities, which he presented at Harvard in order to annoy Quine:
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm (010)
The article is humorous, but deadly serious. Excerpts: (011)
AC
> Quine and Goodman emphasize the economy of nominalism in supposing the
> existence of fewer entities. But the economy which has commonly been
> the concern of the logician, and of the mathematician dealing with
> foundations, has been simply economy of assumption...
> Surely there are other criteria by which to judge a theory.
>
> To return to Quine and Goodman, it is possible, even likely, that the
> failure of their program will demonstrate the untenability of their
> finitistic nominalism... (012)
Following is an article in which I cite and discuss some of those other
criteria, which cannot even be stated in a Quinean framework:
http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/signproc.htm (013)
For a summary of the criticisms (with over 3 dozen references), see Section
2, "A Static, Lifeless, Purposeless World." (014)
John (015)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (016)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (017)
|