ok, if you are interested in the part/whole LOGIC, then you can abstract
anything you like from the multiple meanings of part* from the context of
its use and you are in mathematics proper. this is a world with stated
rules, a world without people talking with each other and using the word
part in the way they think appropriate
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
usa
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Filippo Salustri
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 4:30 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: parts, wholes, reflection, etc.
Klaus,
Set theory is a bad example. Lesniewski originally developed mereology,
like, 100 years ago cuz set theory sucks so bad at explaining parthood.
And of all the set theories I've ever heard of (yes, there's many of
'em), there isn't one that has survived Godel's Incompleteness Theorems,
which is to say there is no set theory that is both logically valid and
complete.
What's that mean to us who don't use formal logic? It means that no
matter what, right at the most basic, academic, scientific, formal
level, there ain't no way to guarantee a right answer if you rely on set
theory.
Systems theory is the same way.
Indeed, even mathematics is, at some level, all wrong. Consider the
notion of an "indeterminate number". For example: x^0=1 and 0^x=0, so
0^0=....um - an indeterminate number. What is up with that? And that's
just algebra, which is a basis of calculus, which is how we describe
pretty much every physical system there is these days.
By comparison, mereology and mereotopology and related systems (a) all
fundamentally avoid many of the pitfalls that mess up set theory, and
(b) remains very much underdeveloped compared to set theory. So there
is still hope that some day, some other approach (maybe mereology, maybe
something else) will provide a MUCH better account of parthood than is
currently possible with set theory.
And on the multiple meanings of 'part':
Klaus, that's exactly my point! There are many meanings of part. The
problem is that we confuse the label 'part' with the concepts - the
meanings - we attribute to it.
I think of one meaning; you think of another. But if the only 'label'
we have to use is the single label 'part', then we're *bound* to
misunderstand one another. So most certainly, context is an important
way to disambiguate the various uses of the label. This is especially
so in cases where people interact. Indeed, one of the reasons I believe
in the importance of context in thinking about parthood is exactly
because I have struggled and continue to struggle with the logical
representation of parthood! See? Logic is really useful! :-)
Cheers.
Fil
klaus krippendorff wrote:
> i think the part/whole logic is well developed, for example in set theory,
> or in systems theory.
>
> this does not mean that ordinary language conforms to formal-logical
> distinctions.
> your example "partly" = in some measure or degree
> but also: "partial" = (a) favoring one thing more than another (b)
referring
> to a part rather than the whole
> "participate" = to take part in something
> "particle" = a basic unit of matter, a minute quantity
>
> there is no single meaning of "part*"
> as michael says, it depends on the context to which i would add of the
> conversation among real people, who coordinate their meanings
>
> klaus krippendorff
> gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
> the annenberg school for communication
> university of pennsylvania
> 3620 walnut street
> philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
> phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
> fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
> usa
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
> Of Filippo A. Salustri
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 10:51 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: parts, wholes, reflection, etc.
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> It's clear that there are many, many approaches to the part/whole thing.
> Besides the work mentioned by previous posts, there is also all work of
> people like Barry Smith, Tony Galton, AG Cohn, Eschenbach, Artale,
> Franconi, et al, Lesniewski (who invented 'mereology'), and so on.
>
> My acquaintance with the work in logic and AI assures me that no one has
> developed a sensible logic that covers 'parthood' without somehow
> disrupting topology - or vice versa.
>
> Also, the different researchers all tend to make certain limiting
> assumptions of their domains of interest. In the end, there's 2
> perspectives one has to choose from.
>
> 1. parthood is axiomatic; ie, you cannot explain why x is a part of y, you
> just state it as factual.
>
> 2. parthood is derived from some other fundamental/axiomatic
characteristic
> (perhaps 'connection' - ie, topology)
>
> The difficult is that in conventional parlance, we tend to blend together
a
> wild assortment of different kinds of parthood, but we do not do so to the
> point where the different kinds of parthood blend into an amorphous blob.
>
> This vagueness is further muddied by language artefacts. For example, one
> might say "The bicycle is partly steel" which suggests that "steel" is a
> part of "bicycle". Do we adopt a linguistic position - ie, we say it that
> way so we need a way to represent it that way? Or do we adopt a more
> semantically based position - ie, "The bicycle is partly steel" => "The
> bicycle has parts that are made of steel" ?
>
> As an engineer, the "semantic approach" works better for me. But as a
> designer, I'd also have to say that 'your mileage may vary'.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
> --
> Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
> Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
> Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
> 350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
> Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
> M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|