SUO: Re: RE: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
>From John Sowa
>Bottom line: FOL does not require standardization by ANSI,
>ISO, or W3C, since it was long ago standardized by a higher
>authority -- namely God.
>From Danny Ayers:
> If we reason about the cat and the mat, we are treating these as atomic
> entities, and this calls for an ability to differentiate between the two.
If
> we only see these through our sonar as a single furry blob on the floor,
> then our reasoning ability becomes limited to say the least. In effect,
the
> truth value of the situation is context-sensitive (through the eye of the
> beholder). This obviously doesn't suggest that God's RFC on FOL is no
longer
> valid, but does cause problems in the mapping of the language of humans to
> that of bats - is the SUO of bats likely to have much in common with that
of
> humans?
Danny, I think you have put your finger on the biggest problem with the
notion that FOL was 'standardized by a higher authority'. Logic is based
on identity; but identity is relative to the observer and the observer's
context. Frequently the more detailed and precise we attempt to identify
something, the more we realize its identify is dependant on our subjective
evaluations and are not objectively on the thing itself. We cannot stand
where god stands; for us mere mortals there is no preferred frame of
reference from which identity can be established; consequently the Excluded
Middle cannot be relied upon. Sorry, John and Chris, I still believe that
FOL is merely a game invented by and for logicians containing assumptions
that are questionable. Another species (or human culture) could contrive a
totally different mechanism for recognizing patterns useful for its survival
... modus ponens, which is dependant on the myth of identity, is not
necessarily the only way. The semiosis of such a culture would better
reflect reality, let's hope it's not hostile.
... sorry to be so stubborn and not accepting of this view, but I still
prefer survival over logic.
Seth Russell