Re: Fitch's paradox and OWA
From: paul c <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:06:42 GMT
Message-ID: <6fhWm.57870$PH1.10396_at_edtnps82>
>
> "All truths are known" is only problematic if you assume that truth
> exists independent of cognition. From a phenomenalistic point of
> view, both entities and predicates exist purely in the mind, which
> means that all truths are known, but doesn't exclude the possibility
> of creating new truths based on sense data. I'm currently leaning in
> this direction (in the sense that Mach espoused), especially after
> coming across relational quantum mechanics.
>
> But I'm getting off-topic here. It seems to me now that Fitch's
> paradox just illustrates the distinction between OWA and CWA formally.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:06:42 GMT
Message-ID: <6fhWm.57870$PH1.10396_at_edtnps82>
Nilone wrote:
> On Dec 16, 11:09 pm, Jan Hidders <hidd..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 16 dec, 12:07, Nilone <rea..._at_gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Does Fitch's paradox prove an inherent contradiction in the open-world >>> assumption? >> Only if you assume that the database contains everything that is >> known. It rarely does. :-) >> >> Besides, do you really believe that everything that is true can be >> known? ;-) >> >> -- Jan Hidders
>
> "All truths are known" is only problematic if you assume that truth
> exists independent of cognition. From a phenomenalistic point of
> view, both entities and predicates exist purely in the mind, which
> means that all truths are known, but doesn't exclude the possibility
> of creating new truths based on sense data. I'm currently leaning in
> this direction (in the sense that Mach espoused), especially after
> coming across relational quantum mechanics.
>
> But I'm getting off-topic here. It seems to me now that Fitch's
> paradox just illustrates the distinction between OWA and CWA formally.
To be more clear/blunt, in the context of the RM, D&D have it that it is a value of the relation that has no attributes. This may seem obscure in general language, but in the db machine context it is much simpler/clearer than the above. Received on Thu Dec 17 2009 - 04:06:42 CET