Ontolog Forum
| Session | Track 2 |
|---|---|
| Duration | 1 hour |
| Date/Time | 05 Mar 2025 17:00 GMT |
| 9:00am PST/12:00pm EST | |
| 5:00pm GMT/6:00pm CET | |
| Convener | Alex Shkotin |
Ontology Summit 2025 Track 2
Agenda
Øystein Linnebo
- Title: Constructional ontology and criteria of identity
- Abstract: Gödel and others have suggested that a set can be regarded as constructed from its elements. Given any objects, we can apply the “set of” operation to construct the set of these objects. Inspired by Gödel’s suggestion, this talk presents a far more general constructional approach to ontology. First, I clarify what it is for some objects to be “constructed” from others. The key is that all truths about the “new” objects that are constructed must reduce to truths about the “old” objects on which the construction is based. Then, I explain the central role of criteria of identity in the constructional approach. When constructing “new” objects, it is particularly important to stipulate what it takes for them to be identical or distinct. A variety of examples are provided, including mereological sums, ordered pairs, as well as cardinal and ordinal numbers. Finally, I present a logical framework in which this constructional approach can be developed. In this framework, a large and natural family of forms of construction can be proved to be consistent.
Conference Call Information
- Date: Wednesday, 05 Mar 2025
- Start Time: 9:00am PST / 12:00pm EST / 6:00pm CET / 5:00pm GMT / 1700 UTC
- ref: World Clock
- Expected Call Duration: 1 hour
- Video Conference URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88593616861?pwd=HafnK0yB7PFDK1EyiUyQRDKanZlbjU.1
- Conference ID: 885 9361 6861
- Passcode: 306236
Discussion
12:05 Bobbin Teegarden: Is a holon just another concept of a 'set'?
12:10 Ravi Sharma: Does operation mean a function as you put process after that?
12:13 Ravi Sharma: Many languages distinguish 1, 2 and many as well differentiate genders 3 types.
12:13 Mike Bennett: An interesting feature of language is that we treat zero as a plural e.g. there are zero marbles.
12:14 Bobbin Teegarden: Reacted to "An interesting featu..." with 👍
12:15 Alican Tuezuen: Isn't the construction is through the "induction"? Maybe a very naive one
12:21 Ravi Sharma: what about incremental construction of holistic progression? how do you specify this dynamics?
12:23 Ravi Sharma: Is intdeterministic same or different than stochastic?
12:30 Ravi Sharma: Tensors and matrices of relativity certainly imply existing together?
12:32 Greg Sharp: How is “Tag” on a union distinct from an adjunction?
12:42 Ravi Sharma: Is mereology then intensional only?
12:47 Ravi Sharma: Extensibility would imply concatenation as nary collection?
12:48 Greg Sharp: What distinguishes the construction of a class (intensional or extensional) from the construction of a collection?
12:48 Greg Sharp: Can you say more on the role of identity in regulating the constructive process?
12:54 Mike Bennett: Can you say a little on how this fits into Chris Partridge's notion of an extensional ontology?
12:56 Gary Berg-Cross: I may have to leave so I'l put my Q here it relates to Mike Gruninger's talk that the sixth problem posed by Hilberth that has never been adequately addressed. Many of us are interested in sets of physical objects and their intensional definitions
- Does plural logical speak to the Mathematical treatment of the axioms of physics?
- 13:15 janet singer: Gary’s question also on physics relevant here
13:00 Greg Sharp: Can an intensional set whose stages of change are tracked (by say, an adjunction) be treated as a set of extensional sets?
13:05 Douglas Miles: Usually mathematics is just example of a sanity test for real KR&R
13:05 Douglas Miles: I mean that Mathematics is supposed to be the easiest minimal test case because we dont have to get very esoteric
13:08 Douglas Miles: I am glad the speaker is happy to embrace the Intensional! It is refreshing
13:10 Douglas Miles: Can everyhting that is normally worked with extensionally initlaly be converted to intensional first so you can use a more powerfull/careful/robust approach? Even equality?
13:13 Douglas Miles: (no mic.. Would someone ask the previous question for me?)
13:21 Douglas Miles: Right Intensional logic is more tolerant (Elaboration Tolerant!)
13:11 Alican Tuezuen: Thank you for the insights! Need to leave for another meeting
Resources
Previous Meetings
| Session | |
|---|---|
| ConferenceCall 2025 02 26 | Track 2 |
| ConferenceCall 2025 02 19 | Track 1 |
| ConferenceCall 2025 02 12 | Track 1 |
| ... further results | |
Next Meetings
| Session | |
|---|---|
| ConferenceCall 2025 03 12 | Track 2 |
| ConferenceCall 2025 03 19 | Synthesis |
| ConferenceCall 2025 03 26 | Track 3 |
| ... further results | |