Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

RE: SUO: Logic and Ontology




Dear Leo,

See comment below.


Matthew West
Principal Consultant
Shell Information Technology International Limited
Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom

Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Other Tel: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.r.west@is.shell.com
Internet: http://www.shell.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Leo Obrst [mailto:lobrst@mitre.org]
> Sent: 05 March 2002 23:21
> To: Bill Andersen
> Cc: SUO
> Subject: Re: SUO: Logic and Ontology
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would agree that if you assume extensionality, as Bill 
> suggests,
> you are nearly to the end of your chain, Matt. But many 
> people have real
> problems with this assumpton. 

MW: Yes, it doesn't work unless you take a 4D approach, but I do
so assuming extensionality is OK for me. I think it is precisely
part of the problem that other approaches cannot work with
extensionality that a potential problem exists.
> 
> I too received this Axiomathes issue (and I too have a 
> problem with the
> extensionality assumption), but have not yet read the Cocchiarella
> article (though I am usually sympathetic to his views). But I didn't
> think that was Lewis's view: geez, Bill, I thought nearly the 
> opposite,
> will have to review. I just thought Lewis took a realist position wrt
> possible worlds. 

MW: Cocchiarella was not supporting Quine's view particularly,
just stating it.

I think Lewis just takes a realistic position wrt possible worlds
too (but I'm happy with John Sowa's take on this).
> 
> Leo
> 
> Bill Andersen wrote:
> > 
> > On 3/5/02 09:10, "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" 
> <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > I was recently sent a copy of Axiomathes, and noticed a paper
> > > with the above title.
> > >
> > > Cocchiarella, Nino B.; "Logic and Ontology", Axiomathes 
> 12: 117-150, 2001
> > >
> > > The part of the paper that interested me was the different
> > > interpretations that could be made of predication, depending on
> > > whether your basic ontology is based on nominalism, conceptualism,
> > > or realism (or some graduation between).
> > >
> > > One of these, attributed to Quine, sems to coincide with my own
> > > interpretation of predication, and I repeat it here.
> > >
> > > "Quine's understanding of his ontology as platonistic and of sets
> > > as universals is based on a rather involuted argument, 
> the essentials
> > > of which are as follows: if we were to adopt platonism as 
> a theory of
> > > universals as represented by higher order logic in which predicate
> > > as well as individual variables can be bound, then
> > >
> > > 1. predicate quantifiers can be given a referential ontological
> > > interpretation only if predicates are (mis)construed as singular
> > > terms (i.e. terms that can occupy the argument or subject 
> positions
> > > of predicates); and
> > >
> > > 2. assuming extensionality,
> > 
> > That's a big assumption.  I have to think this through 
> better but if you
> > make this move then you're committed to something like 
> Lewis' view where a
> > predicate like "Beer" applies to all the beer there is, 
> anywhere, at any
> > time (thus extensional).  On this view "Beer" can't apply 
> conditionally to
> > individuals at worlds or at times.
> > 
> > So, accepting the view of predication that you want is 
> asking a lot from
> > those who don't buy extensionality (this extensionalism 
> carries several not
> > insignificant ontological burdens of its own in exchange 
> for a clean theory
> > of predication) or who are actualists but still want 
> statements like "There
> > could be more beer than what there is" to come out as true. 
>  Given that,
> > there is no basis to call the basis of predication in KIF 
> into question.
> > After all, it's just a logic and you're being a little hard 
> on it, don't you
> > think?
> > 
> > That said, I think you've raised a good issue to think 
> about.  Those who
> > know a lot about Lewis and Quine please chime in here, but 
> I think I have
> > the basics right.
> > 
> >  .bill
> 
> -- 
> _____________________________________________
> Dr. Leo Obrst		The MITRE Corporation
> mailto:lobrst@mitre.org Intelligent Information 
> Management/Exploitation
> Voice: 703-883-6770	7515 Colshire Drive, M/S W640
> Fax: 703-883-1379       McLean, VA 22102-7508, USA
>