SUO: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
Danny,
This is not a difference in logic, but in the ontology:
>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?
If there is a furry cat on a furry mat, then it is true that
there is a furry blob on the floor. The ontology of bats might
not discriminate between them, but that does not affect their
logic.
We can see things they can't, and they can hear things we
can't. So they might not be able to communicate with us
because we don't notice the same things. But when they
reason or respond to facts they notice, they are being logical.
>I have another quandary with the logic/physics divide - deduction, induction
>and abduction are abstract techniques, but seem quite intimately linked with
>the kind of physics we experience. Might it be that if time worked
>differently, we would have a completely different set of logical tools? Or
>would the argument be that we'd simply be using a different subset of FOL?
I would say that we would use the same FOL, but we would
apply it to different facts about the environment.
>From another angle - if we lose the ability to absolutely distinguish one
>entity from another (drop the integers but keep the reals?) is it possible
>to build a reasoning system with FOL?
Yes. You might not be able to notice or talk about some things,
but you could still draw true inferences from true statements
that are within your domain of awareness.
John Sowa