rebuttal -- Re: [om-list] Re: Cyc example

[Tom and other Packers]

OM

    Wasn't that ironic.  I didn't realise what I was doing when I started
writing about what I did, and happened to be writing from Jeremy's computer
(because his computer was convenient at the time).  I got a big laugh out of
this when the irony hit me.

    I'll try not to be a deconstructionist.  And I'll try to let you know
what context I'm talking in, whether it be mathesis, or predicate calculus,
or ...  I'll try to send letters from the right computer, too.  These are my
lips flapping.  They may look like Korean lips from time to time; but I
assure you, they are my lips.

:-)

tomp

----- Original Message -----
From: Jeremy Almond <jeremy at thoughtform.com>
To: <tomp>
Cc: OM List <OM-List at onemodel.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 6:45 PM
Subject: rebuttal -- Re: [om-list] Re: Cyc example


Mark

    You're right about FOPC.  It is meant to be higher and more general than
what you thought I was talking about, and therefore not restricted to any
one "interpretation", such as "second order predicate calculus", or
mathematics, etc.

    But I did not think I was putting words in anyone's mouth.  I was using
mathetical terminology in describing FOPC; I didn't think that I was
converting or warping anything on the semantic level.  Is that what you
meant?

    On the metalinguistic level, the quantifiers and variables of FOPC *are*
quantity and and quality.  They are analogous to quantities and qualities on
the linguistic level.  This quality, represented by a variable, can
represent just about anything else on the linguistic level, including other
qualities and quantities or mixtures.  (And there's nothing else it could
represent, according to mathesis: quantities, qualities, or mixtures.)  So,
I don't think what I said was incorrect.

    I don't care that FOPC doesn't use the word "quality" in describing its
variables.  It should come up with some construct or idea distingishing
number and state.  Otherwise (according to mathesis and MW) it is missing
something important.

    I probably should "qualify" my statements by saying that I'm using the
term "quality" from the context of methesis.  But ... I don't know.  I've
assumed that, since it's me who is talking -- since these are my lips that
are flapping -- that it is my context you should assume is being spoken in.
Just as, if what I say is oppinionated, then you should assume that it is my
oppinion being spoken from, not someone elses'.

    But I will try to be clearer, since I do shift from context to context.
I will try to preface things with "MW" or something.  "Em-Veh" means
"MetaWeltanschauung", but you can assume it also means "Mathetical Worldview
[follows]".

tomp

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Butler" <butlerm at middle.net>
To: "Tom and other Packers" <TomP at Burgoyne.Com>
Cc: "OM List" <OM-List at onemodel.org>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 5:13 PM
Subject: Re: [om-list] Re: Cyc example


> Tom,
>
> But you said:
>
> >     Mark, in Predicate Calculus (including first order predicate
calculus),
> > they are called "quantifiers", including the existential quantifier and
> > universal quantifier.  The variables they quantify are the qualities.
>
> The second sentence is incorrect, because it strongly implies that
variables
> are called qualities in first order predicate calculus. Actually, in FOPC
a
> variable is a placeholder for *any* symbol, which may be either a quantity
or
> a "quality" or something else entirely.  FOPC does not make any
distinction
> between "qualities" and quantities - indeed I seriously doubt the idea of
a
> "quality" exists in first order predicate calculus at all.
>
> If you want to speak in your own special dialect you need to qualify your
> sentences.  Words do not mean what you want them to mean - they mean what
your
> audience thinks they mean, which is a function of the context you place
them
> in, in this case first order predicate calculus.
>
> In order for us to have a clue about what you are talking about, every
single
> time you use words in a non-standard sense, you should prefix your
statement
> by, "In Mathesis..." or "According to Mathetical theory..."
>
> - Mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> om-list mailing list
> om-list at onemodel.org
> http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list


_______________________________________________
om-list mailing list
om-list at onemodel.org
http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/om-list