Re: Guessing?
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 10:03:50 -0300
Message-ID: <48872c3e$0$4052$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
JOG wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:44 am, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote: >
>>"JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>news:a541053b-0ae2-41ec-8a2d-422c18a845f0_at_x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>On Jul 22, 2:44 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br..._at_selzer-software.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"JOG" <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>>>news:8438ea6e-6d8c-45ae-91f2-47ac04b540bc_at_b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>[big snip]
>>
>>>>>>I contend that there is a difference between a symbol that represents
>>>>>>something in the universe and a value. If that runs counter to your
>>>>>>particular brand of common-sense, then I sympathize but suggest you
>>>>>>adopt
>>>>>>another.
>>
>>>>>Yes, we know that. But you're value = object definition leads to the
>>>>>contradictions:
>>
>>>>I think I should clarify this a bit. I'm probably going to botch this,
>>>>so
>>>>please bear with me.
>>>>A value is not just an object, but rather the image of
>>>>an object: within the picture of the universe that is under
>>>>interpretation,
>>>>the value /is/ the object,
>>
>>>There is no such thing as an image of an object. Different view of the
>>>world. Different objects altogether. RM is implicitly underpinned by
>>>this principal and hence its lack of row identifiers and use of keys
>>>(and again this accords with everyday evidence of how we refer to the
>>>world). It seems like you are still resolutely avoiding accepting this
>>>one - but hell, plato got this sort of thing completely wrong too so I
>>>guess at least you're in famous company (...although we do have 2
>>>millenia of combined knowledge on him now).
>>
>>I'm going to tell a story now,
<yawn>
<snip>
> What you describe is no evidence whatsoever of "images of objects". > This is important as it may help your views concerning some need for > row identifiers. Your story describes not one thing, but at least 4 > objects: A life, an unnamed person, a named person and a deceased > person all with different properties. There is no one single child > object in your story at all. And just because those things overlap > doesn't make one any more important than another.
Why do you bother with his nonsense?
>>>>but not necessarily in every picture of the
>>>>universe.
>>
>>>>>* databases then have no values in them.
>>
>>>>Isn't it simpler to say, "I stopped the car." instead of "I applied the
>>>>brakes until the car stopped moving." even though you obviously didn't
>>>>push
>>>>your feet against the ground like Fred Flintstone?
>>
>>>>Isn't it simpler in the same way to say, "Databases contain values."
>>>>rather
>>>>than "Databases contain symbols and combinations of symbols that under an
>>>>interpretation map to objects in the universe." even though it is less
>>>>precise?
>>
>>>A symbol is already defined as "something used for or regarded as
>>>representing something else".
>>
>>Yet symbols are not values.
As obvious a statement as it is pointless.
>>>>>* to tell someone to enter a value into a spreadsheet cell becomes a
>>>>>nonsense.
>>
>>>>see above.
>>
>>>>>* a mathematical formalism contains no values at all, given it need
>>>>>not refer to anything in the real world.
>>
>>>>What a symbol maps to need not be spatiotemporally located.
>>
>>>>>* etc.
>>
>>>>>This is all counter to everyday experience, and nothing to do with my
>>>>>common sense. It is just not good enough to ignore the actual use of a
>>>>>word.
>>
>>>>I don't think it is. The context of this discussion demands a level of
>>>>precision that is not required in the contexts you cited.
>>
>>>Noone needs an imaginary concept of "images of objects", and so we
>>>equally don't need some curveball redefinition of "value" by which to
>>>refer to them.
>>
>>It is not an imaginary concept. A proposition paints a picture of the world
>>(under an interpretation, of course). The elements of that picture are
>>images or projections of what is in the world. Values.
> > As I said, this is just the same "shadows on a wall" nonsense the > dogmatic hand-waving philosophers of 2000 years ago espoused. Humans > define what objects are
Now he's making you sound incoherent. His reply didn't say anything about objects. I strongly suggest you heed Date's _Principle of Incoherence_.
, they don't simply "exist" pre-packaged (the
> universe is there of course, but it is us that delineates it into > objects). Taking your standpoint just leads to infamous paradoxes of > identity, while mine never hits any such contradictions (and as such > also generates good database design, which is the only reason I care > about it). > > I will have to bow out because trying to explain this to you on usenet > will be too frustrating and I'll lose my rag...at some point in the > near future I'll link you to appropriate papers. Regards, J.
<snip> Received on Wed Jul 23 2008 - 15:03:50 CEST