[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

New Ontology



There's going to be a new ontology, and I'll formalise it when I'm in the States. This will accomodate everybody, preserve the lojbanmass, wash the windows, and do everything else.

Any x in the real world is one of the following ontological types:

1. Atoms: things that are not meaningfully composed of parts in any way. e.g. hopefulness. (A prof here said "Nick has less hopefulness about an academic career than before" --- but I don't think my diminished hope is a part of my preceding blind optimism; they are simply different values of {ni pacna}. The {ka pacna} is atomic, as is the {du'u pacna}.)

2. Non-atoms: things that may meaningfully be said to be composed of parts. These subdivide into:

2A. Wholes (what I formerly called atoms): Things where, for any sectioning of the entity into parts, either no part is broda (perfect whole), or at most one part is broda (chipped whole).

2B. Stuff: Entities of which no part is a whole.

2C. Groups: Entities of which at least one part is a whole.

These distinctions are reflected on the inner quantifier (or tu'o-enforced absence thereof.)

These ontological types may be conceptualised in three ways, and this is reflected on the outer quantifier (and, 'redundantly', lo/loi). These are the Counting Types.

i. Individuals: instances singled out of a cardinality of things. (That an Individual of Stuff should be physically separate is probably a pragmatic default (spisa), because it is idiosyncratic when applied to numbers --- which are stuff, in that they do meaningfully have parts in a non-Platonic conceptualisation.)

ii. Collectives/Masses: instances described not by overt counting/quantification, but by describing the size of a portion and the number of bits from which the portion is formed. This is the lojbanmass, and includes my former Collective and Substance (what And calls Bit of Substance). This is what "an amount of" refers to in the gismu list.

iii. Uh... Atoms. Let's use a synonym: singletons. Or singularities. Where you're treating the entity as an atom, even though it might be a stuff or anything else. Like water. Atoms (like the number 2 as a platonic ideal, or propositions --- or kinds) are also quantified (if quantified at all) as singletons.

Any 3D object is a mass of stuff (collective of bits of substance of stuff), because 3D space is subdividable always. However, it can be conceptualised as a singleton as well, making it And's Substance.

So, in my view of the universe, anything such that it is stuff (water) is either "all of" or "some of".

In the not quite so extensionalist and closer to English view, water is water, and the fractional quantifier doesn't work, when you think of water as a singleton. Which you needn't.

The lojbanmass as we have known it (implicitly fractionally quantified) is incompatible with the singularity. Kludges to make this compatible with lojbanmasses may include tu'o loi tu'o broda, ropa loi tu'o broda, pa lo ropa broda, or in the worst case a new gadrow (but I don't want it to come to that.)

The Kind is a different order of thing from the counting type; but when quantified, it is a singleton by default. The kind/subkind relation is presumably not a part-whole relation (as in, Mr Fido is not in any intelligible sense pisu'o Mr Dog,even if there were finitely many subkinds of any kind.)

The collective/mass remains as is, and continues to refer to both stuff and groups, distinguishing between them by finite vs transfinite cardinality of bits.

This ok?


-- **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** * Dr Nick Nicholas, French & Italian Studies nickn@unimelb.edu.au * University of Melbourne, Australia http://www.opoudjis.net * "Eschewing obfuscatory verbosity of locutional rendering, the * circumscriptional appelations are excised." --- W. Mann & S. Thompson, * _Rhetorical Structure Theory: A Theory of Text Organisation_, 1987. * **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** **** ****