[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] A Question About Mathematical Logic

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:27:01 -0400
Message-id: <5628D615.7050908@xxxxxxxxxxx>
On 10/22/2015 12:22 AM, Thomas Johnston wrote:
> As I understand him, John Sowa thinks that ontological commitment is
> _pragmatically _associated with the "Some" quantification; and indeed,
> the history of logic in the last century has demonstrated that FOPL,
> under that assumption, is a powerfully expressive formal language.    (01)

To be precise, I believe that it's important to distinguish
the ontological commitments (at least informally) independently
of whatever version of logic you adopt.    (02)

When you choose a logic (or a collection of related logics) for
any application, you need to recognize how the built-in features
of that logic are related to your assumptions (axioms).    (03)

> I think that ontological commitment is a matter of the content
> of theories, and can't be read off their logical form.    (04)

I would say that every version of logic has some implicit
ontological commitment, and it's possible to analyze the logic
in order to determine what the commitment is.  I doubt that
you can define a logic that has less commitment than FOL.
Aristotle's version, for example, has more commitment.    (05)

To open another "can of worms", I'll start a new thread
about essences and modality -- and the commitments of
modal logic(s).    (06)

John    (07)

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    (08)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>