Timeline for Term of art for ontological evasion
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 10 at 2:17 | comment | added | Rushi | Prove oop inconsistent is heavily a CS discussion. Not fir here. Think of a quantum physicist using partial differential equations. And needing to master these prior to doing QM. My question is the PDE part. The QM part is for elsewhere | |
| May 10 at 2:14 | comment | added | Rushi | 2 para: I'm not saying illusion; I'm saying inconsistent. Try replacing illusion with inconsistent and the arguments (may) go to what I'm looking for | |
| May 10 at 2:13 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @Rushi "I want to proe the OOP choice inconsistent" Can you quickly explain to me what that choice is? I'm not immediately seeing it in your question body (whether that's because it's not there or because I simply missed it) | |
| May 10 at 2:11 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | THats where I sought to go with my second paragraph. pointers may be "eliding" an "ontological" reality that they're just bytes. There are no pointers. And bytes may be "eliding" the reality that they're just voltages. There are no bytes. (and honestly, I don't mind the "there's only voltages" mindset because it lets me avoid having to care which side of a soft-boiled egg one cracks, if you're familair with that reference) | |
| May 10 at 2:09 | comment | added | Rushi | I want to prove the OOP choice inconsistent. The proof needs to be a CSists, the framework for the proof needs be logicsl/philosophical | |
| May 10 at 2:09 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @Rushi The philosophical argument I might make is that, while looking for a word with a meaning close to what you term "ontological evasion" or "ontological elision" might find its end in the possibility that the ontology one speaks of is an illusion. In that case, the quoted terms you use take on a rather interesting twist. The answer you seek may only exist if one assumes a particular ontology. | |
| May 10 at 2:03 | comment | added | Rushi | @CortAmmon Reminder: This a philosophy forum and I didn't forget when I asked. If I change my hat [I've been a programming teacher for near 4 decades] I would say mostly everything your comment saying. As a philosopher l— 50k ft view — this is just shoehorning C++ ideas as your metalanguage. C++ has both C has only pointers Haskell hasneither . And OOP languages (Java) have only references | |
| May 10 at 1:52 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @cmaster-reinstatemonica We could debate illusion vs disguise if we wanted. I might even agree in the end. I readily admit to choosing the words that fit with a historical philosopher's quote. I feel the wider-reaching implications of his quote are rather useful, and I choose to invoke it. | |
| May 10 at 1:50 | comment | added | Cort Ammon | @Rushi There are things I can do to pointers which I cannot do to references (in particular, arbitrary addition and subtraction operations). There are things I can do with references that I cannot do with pointers (make many very useful provable statements about the behaviors of the system). You can say that they are on the same level, and not be wrong. But we will have to be careful about how much "being on the same level" equates the two or even makes them meaningfully similar. Handwaving their differences too much can lead to uncomfortable statements about them. | |
| May 9 at 9:11 | comment | added | cmaster - reinstate monica | @Kevin An illusion is something that seems to be there, but is not. It is not real. A disguise, however, is very real. It just conceals the true nature of something. A fata morgana is an illusion, a bankster is a crook in disguise. | |
| May 8 at 23:31 | comment | added | Kevin | @cmaster-reinstatemonica: What is the difference between a disguise and an illusion? | |
| May 8 at 15:26 | comment | added | JimmyJames | @Rushi In my mind, the high-level meaning of 'pointer' is "something that points". IMO, a FK in a RDMBS is a pointer at that level. In other words, a C-pointer is simply concrete implementation of the high-level concept of 'pointer' just like a 'chef's knife' and a 'putty knife' are both knives even though they are very different in form and use. The problem with 'pointer' here is that people get all Crocodile Dundee about it: "that's not a knife, this is a knife" | |
| May 8 at 14:27 | comment | added | cmaster - reinstate monica | The problem with those "higher level" concepts is not that they are illusions, the problem is that they are pointers in disguise. I.e. they function as pointers, they behave as pointers, for all intents and purposes they are pointers, but don't you ever dare to call them pointers! | |
| May 8 at 7:55 | comment | added | Rushi | You are arguing that all of these "higher level" concepts like references are things people claim are true, but you see them as illusions, built on top of pointers Thats not what I am claiming. I am claiming that pointers (addresses/references/...) and memory are the same level. You can have both or elide both. Pure data in the RDBMS sense is memory reference and location agnostic. See Coods rules | |
| May 8 at 7:27 | comment | added | Rushi | Pls see my reformulation. I can add more details on the CS facet. But I really want to concentrate on the ontology facet | |
| May 8 at 5:33 | history | answered | Cort Ammon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |