Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
On Jan 23, 2008 10:24 PM, Avril Styrman <Avril.Styrman@helsinki.fi> wrote:
> Philippe, Rob, John,
>
> the point I was trying to make, is that if there is one thing clear and
> undeniable, it is that there is something rather than nothing. The nature of
> what is, is a different question.
It is really the nature of truth I'm looking at.
Your refutation of John's subjectivity, and the example of Descartes'
"existence" you use to argue it, both depend on assumptions about the
nature of truth.
You say as much yourself:
> ...Denying it would be also denying the law of contradiction.
Here's someone else saying the same thing:
"As obvious a fact as the "Cogito, ergo sum" is really based on the
validity and truth of the principle of contradiction. This principle
asserts that it is impossible for something to be and not to be at the
same time. Descartes becomes certain of his own existence by the very
fact of his "thinking" or "doubting." True. But why? Because he
perceives clearly that it is impossible to "think and not think," to
"exist and not exist" at the same time. If Descartes were consistent
and really doubted the principle of contradiction, he would have to
affirm that it could be possible for a being to "think and not think,"
to "exist and not exist" at the same time. But, then, according to his
own supposition, he could not be sure after all that the ultimate fact
of his existence is certain, and his famous "Cogito, ergo sum" has no
real objective value."
http://www.radicalacademy.com/adiphilwrgdescartes.htm
These assumptions about the nature of truth would be limiting if we
could not abandon them.
Which is not to say that Descartes' philosophy based on reason was not
a great improvement in many ways, only that it now seems even reason
has its limitations.
As the theory of subjective truth itself tells us all theories must.
I don't know how far John comes on this. A lot of what he says about
the limitations of theories fits. However perhaps he does accept some
kind of absolute truth associated with existence.
I don't recall having heard Descartes led western philosophy on a 300
year wild goose chase. That might be an interesting story.
My bottom line, as always, is that I don't think an absolute ontology
(PPO?) is possible. Fortunately, as I say, I don't think this need
conflict with current practice (CO?), which seems to be moving in the
way of subjective classes, tags and the like, anyway. Instead of
fighting that I think we should get with the program and inform these
organic developments with a bit of theory.
John, machine tags as I have seen them described define hierarchical
relationships. Are there other types of relationships, and forms of
"machine tags", theory might suggest?
Note the important thing about "tags" from my point of view is just
that they are subjective. I see them as something like the partial
theories John has promoted here from time to time. My own interests
tend more to the complexity which results in subjective truth. I think
a more complete solution is possible working from language. But if
people are organically developing John's partial theories in the form
of tags I still think that's better than the status quo, and worth
supporting.
-Rob