SUO: Ontology, Epistemology, and Semiotics (was Lifecycle Integration)
Pierre,
Every means of communication, including every language,
every notation, and every means of recording, processing,
or transmitting information, is a semiotic system.
JS> But I do want to point out that computer systems are
> nothing more nor less than giant semiotic tools for
> processing signs that relate to things in the real world.
>
PG> These are implementation issues.
Of course they're implementation issues. The difference
between mathematics and computer science is implementation.
And so is the difference between formal linguistics and
the grammars for particular languages. So what? That
does not in any way diminish their importance or their
relevance to the SUO project.
JS> And as semiotic systems, there are strong similarities between
> playing basketball and running a business or between erotic
> theater and the legal system of laws, legislatures, and courts.
>
PG> Sure, nice point for a social ontology.
The only conceivable "nonsocial" ontology is theoretical
physics. As soon as you get to any kind of application
(including applied physics and engineering), questions
of purpose and intention are the primary considerations.
They are the deciding factors in determining what to
represent and how to represent it.
One sign of Aristotle's genius is that he did not divorce
ontology from epistemology. More recent attempts to
distinguish them have been dismal failures. Such attempts
are not only worthless for any possible application, but
they are profoundly misguided as philosophy.
John Sowa