ontac-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontac-forum] Re: The world may fundamentally be inexplicable

To: ONTAC-WG General Discussion <ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: 'SUO WG' <standard-upper-ontology@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, CG <cg@xxxxxxxxxx>
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:14:26 -0500
Message-id: <43BD45E2.6040604@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John F. Sowa wrote:    (01)

>
> But there are certain things that are pretty safe bets:
>
>  1. There will be categories called Time, Space, Object,
>     Process, etc.
>
>  2. There will be some assumptions common to all the
>     axiomatizations:  time will have a before and
>     after, and space will have 3 dimensions.
>
>  3. But beyond that, all bets are off.  It would be
>     a mistake to adopt situation calculus instead of
>     pi calculus for reasoning about time;     (02)

It's a mistake to make claims without backing them up with actual axioms.    (03)

PSL (which contains an axiomatization of situation calculus as one of 
its theories)
is a first-order axiomatization that has been proven sound and complete 
with respect
to a set of intended models. This axiomatization has been used in numerous
semantic integration platforms as well as theorem proving 
implementations for
reasoning about activities.    (04)

I have not seen a comparable first-order axiomatization of the pi-calculus.    (05)

It is also misleading to say that situation calculus is used to reason 
about time.
A time ontology is used to reason about time; the situation calculus is 
used to
reason about activities, their preconditions and effects.    (06)

> it would be
>     a mistake to insist on either 3D or 4D treatments
>     of space-time; it would be a mistake to insist
>     that objects are "ontologically prior" to processes;
>     it would be a mistake to say that a vase and the
>     lump of clay from which it is made must be or must
>     not be considered different entities.    (07)

Again, where are the axioms that distinguish the 3D vs 4D approaches?    (08)

>
> That's why the only thing you can insist on is a very
> sparse, very limited set of common axioms.  At that
> level, you can't do much problem-oriented reasoning.
>    (09)

Show me the axioms!!    (010)

- michael    (011)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>