To: | "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | Steven Ericsson-Zenith <steven@xxxxxxx> |
Date: | Fri, 3 Oct 2014 18:24:30 -0700 |
Message-id: | <CAAyxA7vxbaFEKp7xM15cj9_amj_vAncOy4sT8Amu4TsFqAsSAw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
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)
<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] |