SUO: Re: RE: Logic and Ontology
From: "West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE" <Matthew.R.West@IS.shell.com>
> Being a member of a set is not something that changes over time.
> Possessing a property can change over time. This means that property
> possession is different from set membership.
Well then, if those *are* our assumptions, then I agree with you, we are in
big trouble. However, it seems to me, the trouble would not just be with
properties vs membership, but would be with our foundational logical
primitives themselves. None of those, (and, or, not, =>, <=>, =), are
permitted to vary with time ... are they? I mean if (P ?x) can vary with
time, then the law of the excluded middle, (or ( P ?x) (not (P ?x))),
would not always be true ...would it? Doesn't LEM always need to be true
in FOPL? But I had though that when we had chosen to adopt FOPL, we had
also chosen to be talking only of snapshots of reality and\or to code all of
our assertions in timeless statements.
For example
(<=> (red MyCar) (instance MyCar RedThings))
really means
(<=> (red-at-03.11.2000 MyCar) (instance-at-03.11.2000 MyCar RedThings))
Which of my assumptions, or where is my reasoning, wrong now?
Seth Russell
> 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: 08 March 2002 16:00
> > To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Standard-Upper-Ontology (E-mail)
> > Subject: 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
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>