SUO: Re: Perspectives on Situations, Processes, Etc.
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Phil and Jon,
>
> Since a universal ontology, by definition, will have to
> accommodate every version of science, engineering, business,
> and the arts, there will be inevitable conflicts in terminology
> when we talk about them together. In my KR book, I had to face
> many such issues as I tried to accomodate computer science,
> philosophy, logic, AI, and physics. It is not an easy task.
>
> Let me just say that I consider Phil's suggestions to be
> important because we must accommodate situation semantics,
> linguistics, and many other related topics. I believe that
> it is possible to reconcile them to the kind of process
> philosophy that Whitehead was developing and the kind
> of semeiotic that Peirce was developing.
>
> Probability and statistics are also important disciplines,
> but they are part of mathematics. I consider the term "event"
> as used in probability to refer to an abstract mathematical
> construct, such as an element of a set. The fact that it
> uses the same English word as some of the things that occur
> in the world is intended to suggest one way of applying the
> mathematical theory to the world.
>
> But mathematics is extremely tolerant. Its symbols can be applied
> in many different ways to many different kinds of things in ways
> that the mathematicians who invented the symbols never dreamed of.
> So if any compromises must be made, I would suggest that the names
> of the mathematical symbols should be modified with appropriate
> prefixes or suffixes to indicate that they are not of the same
> nature as the subject to which they are being applied.
>
> John Sowa
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
John, Phil,
Yes, of course, but to "accommodate situation semantics,
linguistics, and many other related topics" is not the
same thing as expecting to derive a workable theory of
kinetics, dynamics, or process from the inflections of
tense in ordinary natural languages. I say this as a
person who spent quite a few years thinking about the
relation between the prefix "d" in "dx" that signifies
change and the "d" in the past tense suffixes that have
a similar function. It was an amusing and entertaining
notion, but it did not get me very far in the direction
extending the given languages to accommodate change and
diversity in their object domains. And when it comes to
terms of art more technical than "event", say, even the
concepts of formal linguistics, I am saddened by my own
experience to have to report that psycholinguists are
some of the least careful with these definitions, and
do not thank anybody who tries to tell them about it --
there is at least one long-running literature stream of
my acquaintance that stems entirely from the circumstance
that the folks swimming in it do not know the difference
between a formal grammar and a formal language, and so
I have learned to be very careful about taking anything
from these sources -- the phrase "muddy waters" come back
to mind. Sorry to make generalizations, but I came by all
of these opinions honestly, and the hard way, as always.
Many Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤