On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:53:23PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/19/2014 8:44 PM, Russell Standish wrote: > >On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 08:06:31PM -0800, meekerdb wrote: > >>I think we're talking past one another. You're talking about > >>ontology as the ur-stuff that's really real. I'm talking about the > >>stuff that is assumed as fundamental in a theory. > >> > >>Brent > >> > >Yes, to me an ontology is a statement about what's really real. The > >ur-stuff, as you say. > > > >I've never heard of ontology as something that any theory has. > > That's how Quine uses it. >
OK - yet another thing to clarify when I get around to the "MGA revisited" paper, as the step 8 argument definitely refers to the former meaning of ontology, and not the latter (Quine version). Sigh. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
