SUO: Re: A New Fundamentally Different Formal Motion
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Adam,
So start already.
Just as a suggestion, you might start with a "principled discussion"
of something very basic like your set theory axioms. So far, you have
responded only by saying only that "Chris Menzel helped us with 'em".
That may be a "principAled comment" or even a "Pricipialed remark",
but it is neither "principled" nor a "discussion" in my lexicon.
Jon
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
Adam Pease wrote:
>
> Randy,
> I agree, executing the axioms is essential in order to understand their effects.
> But, at least having a principled discussion about specific axioms would be
> a healthy start.
>
> Adam
>
> At 09:06 AM 6/9/2003 -0700, Randall R Schulz wrote:
>
> >At 07:30 2003-06-09, Adam Pease wrote:
> >
> >>Eric,
> >>
> >>>Even if this group could or should toss out those members that don't
> >>>really believe in a single SUO, the relatively unified remaining group
> >>>members (including myself) would not be able to let go of their pet
> >>>content. The content merging process would be a battle at every
> >>>pair/group of competing axioms.
> >>
> >>I think such a "battle" could actually be extremely
> >>productive. Conversations about particular axioms is exactly what I
> >>would expect a more focused version of this group to be engaged in. Even
> >>if agreement could not be reached, then we would have a far more concrete
> >>justification for particular, possibly incompatible theories. If
> >>agreement were reached, then we'd have achieved a single standard. No
> >>matter what, we'd still learn something.
> >>
> >>Adam
> >
> >
> >Adam,
> >
> >I think for those that have worked with large-scale declarative systems,
> >whether rule-oriented or logic-oriented, the value of debate and
> >conversation about specific formal expressions of ontological conceptions
> >or intent is limited. In Cyc, for example, the range of unintended
> >consequences is huge and few people can fully anticipate the actual result
> >of including a particular axiom in its knowledge base.
> >
> >It seems to me that what's needed is a way to experiment readily with
> >different axiomatizations, not just talk about them. If Cyc's logic were
> >better specified, it would constitute a platform for such an experimental
> >effort, but since it differs so widely and unspecifiedly from FOL or any
> >other well-defined logic, it's value in experimental ontology design is
> >limited as well.
> >
> >Randall Schulz
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o