Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Lainaus "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>:
> Following is what I consider the fundamental distinction:
>
> 1. Science (in the broadest sense) is the open-ended search
> for knowledge without any concern for its applications
> or the amount of time and resources required for the
> search. For example, scientists may take centuries
> to solve a single problem such as Fermat's last theorem,
> which has no known practical applications in itself.
Yes, and I read that Wiles' proof involves using the axiom of
choice, which makes me suspicious about the proof, even though
I do not understand anything else about his proof.
> 2. Engineering is the application of science to the solution
> of practical problems within the limits of available
> resources (such as budgets, deadlines, personnel, etc.).
>
> In that sense, no branch of engineering is a science, but every
> branch of engineering may contribute to science by testing
> scientific theories and by contributing new ideas that may
> stimulate the further development of science.
>
> I would consider almost all of computer science to be a branch
> of engineering rather than pure science. And electrical
> engineering is also a branch of engineering rather than science,
> even though it has contributed many new ideas to science.
>
> And by the way, I do not consider the word 'pure' to be an
> honorific that implies a higher value. The distinction between
> science and engineering is independent of any value system.
>
> In fact, much of the science that is pursued for its own sake
> without any concern for application is much less interesting than
> those branches that have an enormous amount of practical use.
Your version of pragmatism entails that, and that is also the right way to
go within this forum. But I think that perfect philsoophical ontology PPO
has a remarkable applicability. It will fill the space that is filled
currently by religion, similarly as modern religions filled, or conquered
the space from the older religions. Similarly as the theory of relativity is
an advancement compared to newton's theory, e.g. christianity, islam, and
all the Palestinian religions are advancements to many older religions. They
at least commit to the idea that ''if the single God exists, then God
necessarily exists'' (whereas older religions included sacrifice, belief in
rocks, etc.) This is the main point in Gödel's ontological argument (I thank
Ilmari Hyvönen for pointing this out), which he never published.
PPO has never been the science of what is. It is the science of ''IF you
commit to X, then X affects your commitments towards other things''. That
is, your commitments cannot be mutually contradictory. This is what
separates PPO from religion. Sure, religions can be considered as axiomatic
systems, but PPO as an axiomatic system corresponds to reality much more
strongly. This is also called scientific realism, a word that has been
misused by e.g. Lenin.
PPO is the engineering of belief systems. It can benefit engineering only
indirectly, and therefore it does not fit into this forum.
Avril