Re: SUO: RE: RE: Lifecycle Integration Schema
Hi Chris,
You wrote:
" ... we have to resort to relations and properties that relate to some
metaphysical consideration and that cannot simply be derived by applying FOL to
other relations and properties."
I guess I just don't see what that is or what is the problem with FOL that you
are pointing at. Can you provide an example of such 'relations and properties'?
Do you have something like modality in mind?
>
> In reply to Jon,
>
> >
> > But I have no information that allows me to apply
> > the criterion of "existing in space and time".
>
> Matthew wrote:
>
> MW: I quite agree. I would love to know how to do this.
>
> I think that this brings out an important issue in what we are attempting to
> do. Although our (formal) axioms may be expressible in FOL and can thus
> bring a substantial degree of rigour, there are times (as far as I can see)
> where we have to resort to relations and properties that relate to some
> metaphysical consideration and that cannot simply be derived by applying FOL
> to other relations and properties. Part of the problem is finding a
> suitably small, fundamental set of such things, suitably describing them and
> agreeing them. Am I missing something?
>
> Regards
> Chris Angus
>
>
--
Pierre Grenon
IFOMIS Uni Leipzig
Haertelstr. 16-18
04107 Leipzig
http://people.ifomis.uni-leipzig.de/pierre.grenon/
pgrenon@ifomis.uni-leipzig.de
phone: 49(0)351971672
fax: 49(0)3519716179