SUO: Re: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
Suppose your point of view is close to some in biology .
Suppose the very important notions of "semantic closure" and "metasystem
transition" must be taken into account in the SUO.
Also suppose not only the FOL but some elements of the SOL will be helpful
(we use some already).
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Seth Russell" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "Sergio Navega"
<email@example.com>; "Chris Menzel" <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sent: 30 ???? 2001 ?. 3:45
Subject: SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
> I didn't mean any arbitrary form. What I meant was a form
> that would be used to preserve truth when populated with
> some content -- any content that represents something about
> what any agent perceives in terms of its own sensory organs
> about its own environment.
> >From: "John F. Sowa" <email@example.com>
> >> The basic point I would make is that the logical forms used by
> >> intelligent insects, apes, dolphins, and humans would necessarily
> >> be equivalent --
> >I think the combinatorial explosion of form alone makes it useless to
> There is no combinatorial explosion. On the contrary, any
> intelligent being from any planet of any species that seeks
> forms of inference that preserve truth must converge on one
> particular logical form, which we happen to call classical
> first-order logic.
> Aristotle converged on one subset, Boole converged on a
> different subset, Peirce and Frege converged on exactly the
> same superset of Aristotle and Boole, even though they used
> very different notations and came from very different starting
> points. Any intelligent insect or dolphin on any planet
> in the universe that wanted a notation for doing reasoning
> that would preserve truth would inevitably coverge on some
> notation equivalent to some subset or superset of FOL.
> Bottom line: FOL does not require standardization by ANSI,
> ISO, or W3C, since it was long ago standardized by a higher
> authority -- namely God.
> Bottom line #2: If you want to demonstrate that your notation
> is adequate for doing reasoning, the first thing to verify
> is what subset or superset of FOL it represents.
> Bottom line #3: The simplest way to verify bottom line #2 is
> to define a two-way formal mapping of your notation to some
> other notation whose expressive power has already been defined
> as some subset or superset of FOL.
> John Sowa