SUO: RE: Re: Logic & Programming Languages
>This is not a difference in logic, but in the ontology:
That makes sense, thanks. I still have lingering doubts though on the
universality of FOL. Ok, It's a consistent mathematical system, when
interfaced to the real world through an ontology can provide a useful model.
But might it not be conceivable that a different system would be just as
useful (would it still be reasoning?), given ontologies spawned from a
different world view? What is it about FOL that makes it (kind of) the
lowest common denominator? I'm thinking here about an analogy (loose of
course) with Newtonian & relativistic physics - both valid systems, but can
either (a new theory might come along) really be said to be universal?
This next question I'll repeat, now accepting the line between logic &
ontology, I'd be interested to hear comments : is the SUO of bats (or
dolphins or aliens) likely to have much in common with that of humans?
>>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.
That sounds reasonable, again more of an ontological issue I suppose.
>>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.
But how would one decide truth or otherwise, a binary state, from
information in a continuous form?