W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2007

Re: Logic As Formal Semiotic -- Discussion

From: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:47:40 +0200
Message-Id: <9A3A202F-239E-4369-A222-D9B24BA72FBA@bblfish.net>
Cc: "Jon Awbrey's Inquiry Project" <inquiry@stderr.org>, Semantic Web Forum <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ontolog Forum <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>, Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>
To: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@att.net>

Calling in a Redundancy theory of truth is very misleading. There is  
a big difference between
"Snow is white" and the fact of snow being white. It just looks  
redundant because we are expressing both in language. But it is  
already very different when you look at the same sentence in French

"La neige est blanche" is true in French iff Snow is white .

That is saying the same thing, but is not at all redundant .

This goes further, there is a big difference between a sentence  
quoted and one believed. So I might say

Joe believes "Jim kissed Jane" .

Or in N:

---8<--------
@prefix x: <http://www.gnowsis.org/ont/kissology#> .

:joe cog:believes { :Jim x:kissed :Jane } .
---8<--------


And believing it

---8<--------
:Jim x:kissed :Jane .
---8<--------

Perhaps the second one was reached because the I believe a stupid  
rule such
as

---8<--------
{ :joe cog:believes { ?a ?r ?b . } } => { ?a ?r ?b . }
---8<--------

ie I believe whatever I believe joe to believe.

The second might trigger some serious actions, and many films have  
been made
about the predisposition of jealous people to jump too quickly from the
belief statement to the later one, and the situations this leads them  
to.

This is because belief and action and so emotions are closely related.

Anyway, this is far from being redundant.

Henry


On 1 Aug 2007, at 16:26, Jon Awbrey wrote:

>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
> Henry,
>
> It looks like that discussion of Ramsey got moved to here:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_theory_of_truth
>
> I can't say what shape it's in at the present time.
>
> At any rate, I'll be getting back to Peirce's line, anon.
>
> Jon Awbrey
>
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
> ¢iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
> getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-User_talk:Jon_Awbrey
> zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
> http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
> wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
> o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
>
Received on Wednesday, 1 August 2007 14:48:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:17 GMT