-----Original Message-----
From: Paul S Prueitt [mailto:psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 8:53 PM
To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion
Cc: Peter Kugler; Ben Goertzel; Dick Ballard; Judith Rosen; Ken Miner;
KriegPeter; Paul J. Werbos; Peter Stephenson; T. Adi
Subject: RE: [ontac-forum] Theories, Models, Reasoning, Language, and
Truth (01)
June, and forum (02)
I am posting your note to [303] in my web log.... but I have a major
question I need to ask .. before I can take the next step... (03)
the latttice of theories, developed by Tarski and Sowa.. and others, seem to
assume that every element of any possible theory can be compared in a
subsumption relationship.... and thus the lattice... (04)
Rosen talked about the largest model, and I always hated that, because I
never felt comfortable with the issue of relevance, and ordering . One
theory is Larger than another theory? How can one say that? (05)
How does one know in the general case? Well I should say that my friend
Peter Kugler talked about Rosen talking about the largest model. Perhaps
Judith Rosen has time to help us a little on some issues.... This is not a
philosophyical debate, but a search for a way forward for an ontology
community that is really stuck in a very real sense. (06)
Again, the issue is about the formation of categories in the natural world
and in the mental world and the involvement of these categories in
"theories" so the induction of new natural type seems to be a precursor to
a "theory in its natural form" (what ever that is). Here by "induction" I
mean something like metabolic induction where what is "caused" depends on
what is "there". (07)
I have included a few of the people I trust on these issues... and ask if
any one has a precise statement that can be posted into the discussion. (08)
Dick Ballard?, Paul Werbos?.... Ben .... ? (09)
Lattices (010)
I love this kind of mathematics, but I am not sure that the common notion of
a theory... (011)
like my personal theory as to why I have been consistantly failing
to make my point about Edelman's notion of degeneracy to the
ONTAC working group.... (012)
can be "ordered" as part of a formal lattice. (013)
Are you, or are you not, ,making the mistake that we attribute to the earily
Wittgenstien? (014)
If not, why not.... (015)
I suspect that the answer leads into something new, and interesting. (016)
and simpler. (017)
This note is posted also at
http://www.ontologystream.com/beads/nationalDebate/303.htm
and edits may be made to this URL (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (019)
|