SUO: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
Matthew
Yes I still don't see it ....
You seem to have chosen to assume that possessing a property and being a
member of a set are actually fundamentally different. I think they are
really quite the same thing; and the only difference is whether you choose
to construct your reality on properties of objects or memberships in sets.
My height is my height regardless of whether I measure it as 5'11" or 180.34
cm. If I can convert back and forth between them with a formula, what real
difference does it make?
Seth Russell
----- in response to -----
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> You have it but seem unable to see it.
>
> If possessing a property and being a member of a set are different,
> but the same construct (predication) are used to represent both of
> them, then when you see a predication how do you know whether it is
> meant to represent something being a member of a set or something
> possessing a property?
>
>
> 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: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > Sent: 06 March 2002 20:27
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
> >
> >
> > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> >
> > > You have only shifted the problem. So now what is the meaning
> > > of hasState with respect to the tuple <mycar, red>? Is it the
> > > same as the meaning of instance with respect to the tuple
> > > <mycar, redThings>? And is that meaning set membership?
> >
> > I guess I don't have a clue what this philosophical
> > broo-ha-ha is about. It
> > seems to me that something having a property just means that
> > there is some
> > binary function that returns 'True' if the property obtains
> > for the thing.
> > In a computer this binary function would be implemented by a
> > program that
> > could be run at any particular time on any particular object
> > (in the correct
> > domain) and would return a true\false result value. Being a
> > member of a set
> > is a mathematicians way of conceptualizing the same process. The two
> > different views (and I agree that they are different) could
> > be related by
> > some formula .. say:
> >
> > (<=> (red ?x) (instance ?x RedThings) )
> >
> > I made a somewhat more detailed picture of this in the mentograph:
> > http://robustai.net/mentography/property_or_instance.gif
> >
> > What am I missing? What is the underlying ambiguity that has not been
> > exposed here?
> >
> > Seth Russell
> >
> > ----in response to ---
> > > 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: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > Sent: 05 March 2002 17:56
> > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > Subject: Re: Logic and Ontology
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Ok, I think I see what you mean. But we could have chosen
> > > > different KIF
> > > > predicates:
> > > >
> > > > (hasState mycar red)
> > > > or from the other perspective
> > > > (instance mycar RedThings)
> > > > and or if time is a problem
> > > > (hasStateTimed mycar red 'March5:12:02AM')
> > > > (instanceTimed mycar RedThings 'March3:12:03AM')
> > > >
> > > > So isn't the problem with the precision of the predicate we
> > > > choose to use
> > > > and not with KIF predication itself? (Sorry I didn't take
> > > > the time to look
> > > > up actual sumo predicates.)
> > > >
> > > > Seth Russell
> > > >
> > > > ----- in response to -----
> > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Seth,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am loath to try to descibe other peoples view of the
> > world. You
> > > > > almost innevitably misrepresent them. Still subject to
> > correction
> > > > > here goes.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you have what I would call a "property" view rather
> > than a "set"
> > > > > view then you think that the properties that a thing has change
> > > > > over time, and that the things that have the property
> > have changing
> > > > > membership. These properties therefore can't be sets (whose
> > > > membership
> > > > > does not change) so when you say:
> > > > >
> > > > > (red mycar)
> > > > >
> > > > > you are not asserting set membership but something else.
> > > > Whatever that
> > > > > is is what predicate means for those with that viewpoint.
> > > > >
> > > > > As a cross reference the 4D viewpoint would say that a
> > state of the
> > > > > car was red, and that red was the set of all states
> > that were red,
> > > > > past, present and future, so the membership is
> > unchanging, actually
> > > > > time is taken out of the equation, and red really is a set.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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: Seth Russell [mailto:seth@robustai.net]
> > > > > > Sent: 05 March 2002 16:54
> > > > > > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE;
> > Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Logic and Ontology
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE"
> > <Matthew.R.West@is.shell.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The bottom line here as far as I can see is that
> > without stating
> > > > > > > a particular meaning for predication, KIF is ambiguous.
> > > > Or perhaps
> > > > > > > I should say that when you use KIF, you need to state
> > > > the meaning
> > > > > > > of predication you are using.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Could you provide us with a tangible example giving differing
> > > > > > meanings of
> > > > > > predication?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seth Russell
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>