Nicholas: (01)
Many thanks for taking the time to parse my initial thoughts. The paper
only touches the surface of where this thinking may go. I will read the
Dolce next to understand more. Here are some additional thoughts to ponder: (02)
Where does one draw the line between something being a universal truth
and a perception/assertion? If I smash two rocks together, it makes a
sound. Sure - on earth if there is a gaseous environment to transmit
the shock waves. What if it happens very slowly by two rocks being
forced together as part of continental shift? It still makes a sound,
yet it would likely be imperceivable to humans due to the long distance
between frequency peaks. (03)
A rock is matter. In the context of human perception, it appears solid,
yet it is not. If we examined it under close enough scrutiny, it is a
matrix of related bits of energy. (04)
<quote who="me">
Are humans' axioms of 'universal truths' tainted by our own arrogance in
assuming our perceptions are ubiquitous?
</quote> (05)
A rock has mass. How can you measure the mass. In the context of
static terrestrial existence, it is easy to assign a value based on
relating the gravitational pull to some scale. In space, the measure of
mass is completely relative to the velocity contrast to the perceiver. (06)
There are a number of contextual variables that seem to have the ability
to contort truth tables. (07)
Terrestrial proximity (how close is the thing to a terrestrial body)
Temporal
Temperature
Existential State (example: solid, gaseous, liquid)
Granularity of perception precision (to a human in an airplane, the
lines in the desserts are pictures, to an ant climbing them, they are
simply mounds of dirt)
Number of planes of perception (3d, 4d, *)
Energy (humans perceive such a small band of the overall spectrum. even
something like magnetic energy can twist apparent "truths") (08)
There are probably many more human being related contexts too. (09)
I am definitely going to read the Dolce work you referenced. Sounds very
interesting. (010)
Duane (011)
Internet Business Logic wrote: (012)
> Nicholas --
>
> You wrote:
>
> /If you really want unambiguous context information, it ought be
> spelled out in a way that is sufficiently formal and sound to make
> reasoning valuable and useful. /
>
> I'd suggest that a _representation shift_ can help with this.
>
> As you may know, we have been suggesting that reasoning directly with
> open vocabulary English can help to solve these kinds of problems.
> Why describe the problem and its solution in English, then try to
> solve it in a non-English notation? That's the source of most of the
> problems.
>
> Although reasoning directly with open vocabulary English may sound
> like blue sky, there is a system that does this, albeit with a subtle
> trade off to avoid dictionary construction yet get precise English
> semantics. (The underlying logical semantics is model-theoretic.)
>
> The system is live, online, with a number of Ontology and other
> examples, at the site below. The author- and user interface is simply
> a browser. The approach is described in the e-Government
> presentation. There's also a recent paper at
> http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19 .
>
> Thanks in advance for comments.
>
> -- Adrian
>
> --
>
>Internet Business Logic -- online at www.reengineeringllc.com
>
>Reengineering LLC, PO Box 1412, Bristol, CT 06011-1412, USA
>
>Phone 860 583 9677 Mobile 860 830 2085 Fax 860 314 1029
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (013)
|