ONT Re: IFF Model Theory Ontology 1.0, Request For Comment
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
matthew, other interested parties, ...
just a bit of clarification:
> > So when people, and it's not just you, of course, make these sorts
> > of claims about ontological agnosticism or ontological neutrality,
> > on the strength of having any kinds of "individuals" in the universe
> > of the model, but maintain as a tenet of their formal superstructure
> > a firm distinction between type/token, predicate/subject, or whatever
> > the local name is -- well, that just rankles my sensitivities.
>
> MW: In particular I stand here as one who has never been able to discern
> any difference between type and predicate. Predicates just seem to be
> some types that are "fixed" (in FOL), and being a predicate very much
> a matter of choice. (always assuming I have Jon's drift right).
here i am thinking of "atomic individuals" as ideal fictions,
like "point mass test particles", or as limiting cases, like
a point defined as a nested set of neigborhoods, which after
we get conscious about signs and information we recognize as
the "perfect information case", never actually realized in a
real system of our fallible acquaintance. so the analogy of
individual : collective :: particle : waveform comes home to
roost, and any formal system that just assumes it knows of a
hard and fast distinction between tokens and types, or atoms
and predicates, or whatever, is not one that i would trust.
jon awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤