- From: John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net>
- Date: Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:02:21 -0400
- To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@ontolog.cim3.net>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org, 'Dan Brickley' <danbri@danbri.org>
Rich, If you want to discuss nominalism vs. realism, then stay on that topic. But there are an infinite number of topics about language, logic, and philosophy that could be discussed. And this isn't the forum to belabor them. > Exception: names can be given to the unreal, imaginary, > constipated, undefined or responsible, but each of those > names implies a structure of common understanding among > hearer and hearee. Now that gets into how names are linked to their referents. That is another point that is independent of that distinction. > Reductionism is as real as algebra, lisp, sql, or other > convenient context management apparatus, method, representation > or specification. Reductionism is not a mathematical technique. It's a question of how one level of scientific description, such as chemistry, is related to another level, such as physics. > Anaphora (Category error instances)... Anaphora are indexical terms such as pronouns that must be resolved to their referents. They rarely, if ever, are instances of category errors. > The word 'set' is itself a nominal signal with a substantial > baggage (impedimentum) of definition specs to interpret... The word 'set' comes from formally defined mathematics, and it has no baggage other than the axioms of set theory. > We can implement, take measurements, theorize about the results, > update the old theories, update both intensive theories and > extensive data, and recurse for the next tick. Keeps you busy. Good idea. Keep busy. I suggest that you take Humpty Dumpty's advice: use words any way you choose. John
Received on Tuesday, 8 September 2009 04:02:58 UTC