| Who | When |
Messages | |
|
|
|
Einvaal
|
1
|
 |
|
07-12-2002 12:14 PM ET (US)
|
|
Prior (web) classification you should settle the basic ontological questions. Going with the 'library classification' schemes you implicitly buy into pretty dusty stuff ontology-wise. As it happens, ontology is a hobby of mine and I've recently initiated a blog for discussing and defining a new ontology at http://www.einvaal.netWhile the tone of the blog is kinda informal my goals and methods for the new ontology are hardcore philosophy. Welcome onboard if interested!
|
John Kozak
|
2
|
 |
|
07-12-2002 07:16 PM ET (US)
|
|
Edited by author 07-13-2002 04:12 AM
Surely it's the mathematical, not philosophical, sense of 'ontology' which underlies this?
|
Jerry Kindall
|
3
|
 |
|
07-12-2002 11:29 PM ET (US)
|
|
The mathematicians should call it "ontonomy." Ontonomy would be to ontology as astronomy is to astrology. ;)
|
Einvaal
|
4
|
 |
|
07-13-2002 08:38 AM ET (US)
|
|
Well, the rigor of ontology has been based on logic - it seems that there have been even new metaphysical or ontological results, like actual results, based on reasoning in modal logic.
But yes, mathematics has definitely more rigor and I think category theory will play a major part in future metaphysics.
|
| OVGuillermo
|
5
|
 |
|
08-27-2007 10:35 PM ET (US)
|
|
Thank you for your site. I have found here much useful information. Good site ! ;)
|