RE: ONT Re: Zeroth Order Ontology

Oh Jon, that's soooo good! (8>)).

<<<I haven't yet caught up with everything
that Tom wrote,>>>

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jon Awbrey
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:56 PM
To: Inquiry; Ontology; SemioCom
Subject: ONT Re: Zeroth Order Ontology



o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

ZOO.  Note 2

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o

Murray, Tom, et al.

This will be a bit sketchy for now, but one of the things that
I would like to explore on this thread in a couple of weeks is
this notion of "formalization in layers" (FIL), whose sense is
yet to be worked out.  I haven't yet caught up with everything
that Tom wrote, but cursory scans tell me that we are close to
being copacetic with the idea that there is a type of stepwise
refinement that is orthogonal to the usual axes of ontological
gravitation, and if this checks out, it would allow us to drop
the terms "bottom-up" and "top-down" whenever they cease to be
of use for aiming the arrows of alacrity, clarity, information,
inquiry, negentropy, and order, scarcely caring which way they
happen to fall when we do finally get a round to dropping them.

What comes to my mind under this head is the lesson that I learned
a long time ago about having to get the zeroth order layer of logic,
roughly speaking, boolean algebra, monadic predicates, Peirce's Alpha,
propositional or sentential calculus, down good and tight before trying
to build much of anything on "top" of it.  This subject bores many folks
to tiers, but then, I have not seen much in the way of real construction
going on in their neighborhoods for something like a hundred plus years.

With that Jeremiad out of the way, for the moment, let me go back to
the object example that we last had before us, that brought all this
stuff flooding back into my mind:

JA: | Let us try to approach the question
    | of "semantic inter-operability" (SIO)
    | by way of the following sub-questions:
    |
    | 1.  What is the "meaning" of a "finite set of sentences" (FSOS)?
    |
    | 2.  What is the "meaning" of a "finite set of tuples" (FSOT)?
    |
    | 3.  How shall we compare the "meanings" of these two?

What we have here is a failure to intercommunicate between
extensional and intensional datasets/concepts, and that is
the problem that I would like to approach in the manner of
newborn babes, simplicity first, step-wise trying to crawl,
to walk, to run, perchance to fly, in that order, whatever
else it takes to get the idea across.

Jon Awbrey

o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o