SUO: Re: Inquiry Driven Ontology Development
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
This time I will take up the differential aspect
of inquiry as a dynamic process of theory change.
| Note on Relevance & Utility of Miniature Models:
|
| For reasons of the briefest possible exposition,
| I have elected to discuss the subject matter in
| the medium of a just barely non-trivial example.
| In order to appreciate the point and the thrust
| of any such radically impoverished test example
| it is necessary to recognize the application of
| one or two limiting principles to the axiomatic
| expressions of its thus-purported circumstances:
|
| 1. Gensym Fallacy. The sense and the significance of
| the circumstantial description is circumscribed by
| the logical form and the number of terms it enjoys.
|
| 2. Ginseng Truism. The sense and the significance of
| the circumstantial description is circumscribed by
| the logical form and the number of terms it enjoys.
|
| In particular, even though it is bound to appear for the moment that
| I am restricting my presentation to "axiom change operators" (ACO's)
| that act locally on the points of a given logical configuration in
| a fixed lattice of propositional facts or terms, it will be clear
| that a "zeroth order theory" (ZOT) that is presented by a finite
| set of "zeroth order axioms" (ZOA) is itself equivalent to the
| conjunction of these axioms, and thus to a single proposition
| in the appropriate "zeroth order ordering" (ZOO). In effect,
| one whole ZOO is encapsulated by a single point in another.
|
| Anyway, I think that is right, but it's a thought whose
| consequences I am still struggling to grasp fully, and
| so maybe I will eventually discover a problem with it.
Returning to the example in question, let me now draw
a more expansive picture of the "Rainy Day" situation,
one that adduces to the account some consideration of
what our peripatetic or precipitate hero was probably
doing and thinking, however consciously or other-wise,
just slightly before the imaginary events in question.
You see, our hero did not begin his life with the
shock of cool air on his skin, well, not on this
particular, late ambulatory occasion, but had
a prior distribution of default assumptions
about what his day was going to be like.
Just to extrapolate in a plausible vein of our imagination,
let us play along and say that the initial facts were thus:
A_1 = Air warm
B_1 = Balmy day
C_1 = Clear sky
Pulling the "conventional contingency" or "customary connection" trick,
let us then relativize the array of this data in the following fashion:
C = Current situation
C => A_1
C => B_1
C => C_1
For the moment, let this figure of a "current situation" C
be one that is allowed to "go with the flow", letting its
letter be re-used to anchor whatever the case may become.
Now I do not know if it has to be the case that these three
features of the current situation had ever been entertained
by our ambler in any particular order, but we might suppose
their relative consistency as consisting in some such scene
as this: The hiker has formed a prior assumption about the
Case that applies to the current situation, let's say, that
the day is balmy, C => B_1, an assumption that he will keep
as a default to continue in the same way until there arises
a reason to think otherwise. Further, we may imagine quite
plausibly that a Rule of the form B_1 => A_1 can be applied
to the Case C => B_1 to deduce the expectation of a certain
Fact, namely, that the current situation will feature among
its phenomena the qualities of the air being warm, C => A_1.
So this logical set-up, or the likes of it, is what we may assume,
at least, plausibly enough for our currently illustrative purpose,
as the logical environ into which our soon to be inquiring ambler
strolls one fine and for the moment sunny day.
The rest you know. The cooler air, A_2, sensually contests
and logically contradicts the continuing assumption of the
prior condition A_1, demanding a fresh evaluation of the
conditioning assumption B_1, altering it into the new
hypothesis B_2, boding rain, which abduced Case is
corrobated to a moderate degree by looking up and
spying a cloud in the sky, C_2.
Figure 1 manages to sum it all up in a fairly consummate fashion:
| A_1 A_2 C_1 C_2
| o~~~~~>~~~~~o o~~~~~>~~~~~o
| \ /
| \* * * */
| \ /
| \ * * * * /
| \ /
| \ * * * * /
| \ /
| \ * . * /
| \ /
| \ * * * * /
| \ /
| \ B_1 o~~~~~>~~~~~o B_2 /
| \ * * /
| \ /
| \ * * /
| \ /
| \ * * /
| \ /
| \ * * /
| \ /
| \ * * /
| \ /
| \*/
| o
| C
|
| Figure 1. Sign of Rain, The Prequel
|
| A_1 = Air warm, A_2 = Air cool,
| B_1 = Balmy day, B_2 = Bodes rain,
| C_1 = Clear sky, C_2 = Cloudy sky,
|
| C = Current situation.
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤