Re: Axiomatic ontology. Was: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
John,
It is a blasphemy to disrespect so badly the spiritual farthers,
particularly, the Farther of Modern Philosophy and Mathematics. Many
revolutionary scientific ideas (sciences, methods, theories) owe to Rene
Descartes, not just the moto: Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. Let me remind
just some of these great things:
1. algebraic geometry with its built-in concept of Cartesian product;
2. mind-body interactionism with its inbuilt construct of causal
interactions between mental events and physical changes;
3. advanced rationalism with its built-in conception of innate knowledge,
some knowledge gain by sense experience, but most fundamental truths and
principles by reason and deduction (in ontology, logics, mathematics,
ethics).
4. mathematical philosophy with its inbuilt idea of mathematicism
(exploiting formal structure and rigorous methods in philosophical systems).
It was Descartes who found that each kind of magnitude should make a
distinct dimension. Beside space (length, width, breadth), time, there are
many other physical dimensions as weight, speed, moment, etc. That the
physical world is neither 3D nor 4D but rather (n+4)D entity, and that a
history of thing is formally represented as a trajectory (curve) in the
(n+4) dimension state space.
By the way, the idea of formal axiomatic ontology comes from his works
again. It was Descartes who proposed to organize ontological (philosophical)
knowledge in the form of definitions, axioms, rules and theorems, following
Euclid's axiomatization of geometry and Aristotle's Topics. So, it was him
who first subjected ontological systems to axiomatization and to general
mathematical methods, thus to secure the consistency of meaning,
completeness of analysis, correctenss of inference, systematicity of
discovery of possible relationships.
Re the saying: ''I think, therefore I am'', try to test it in your personal
experience, imagining that you suddenly lost your power to cogitate and
cerebrate, what a poor existence and wretched life it might be!
Azamat Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy
PS: For more learning about axiomatic ontology order the Universal Ontology
book:
http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?ID=7641
Contact UsIGI Global
Main Office
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Suite 200
Hershey, PA 17033, USA
Tel: 717-533-8845
Toll Free: 1-866-342-6657
Fax: 717-533-8661
or 717-533-7115
Email: cust@igi-global.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@BESTWEB.NET>
To: <standard-upper-ontology@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Axiomatic ontology. Was: D1. Separate computer science ontology
from philosophical ontology
> Avril,
>
> We have such a name:
>
> AS> First we got to agree that we have a common name
> > for the totality of all things that exist...
>
> It is "the universe".
>
> What I was objecting to is the assumption that absolute certainty
> is, should be, or even could be the goal of science or philosophy.
>
> In the 16th century, the writings of Sextus Empiricus, a famous
> skeptic at the end of the second century AD, were published in
> a Latin edition. Michel de Montaigne read it and popularized
> the skeptical views in his widely read essays. For more info
> about Sextus, see
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism-ancient/
> Ancient Skepticism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
>
> Descartes reacted to the skeptical movement by going to the opposite
> extreme of searching for absolute certainty. That was an unfortunate
> move, which led to "a 300 year wild goose chase", as Whitehead said.
>
> Absolute certainty is humanly impossible. There may be certain
> points that are unassailable, such as the fact that something exists.
> I have no doubt that is true. But Descartes's method was a fraud
> because he tried to doubt something that is beyond doubt. And he
> made the claim that he could use that point as a basis for proving
> something else with absolute certainty. But he failed.
>
> The quest for absolute certainty poisoned, vitiated, or at least
> distorted the philosophies of many very intelligent people. Besides
> Descartes, there are Hume, Kant, Frege, Carnap, and many others.
> Those people made positive contributions to knowledge, but none of
> them have discovered a single additional empirical statement that
> could be considered absolutely certain.
>
> I strongly recommend that you not poison your mind with that
> same disease.
>
> John