Hi, (01)
If you allow me to add a pragmatic question....about your point of truth
tables: (02)
You said: (03)
>>>There are a number of contextual variables that seem to have the ability
to contort truth tables. (04)
>>>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") (05)
========================================
So when decision makers have decision tables and truth tables and some
Robert's Rules of Order for debate on consequences, how might resource
policy be developed? (06)
My context is the effort of RAND in the early 1970's to model Presidential
warfare decision making contexts (Graham T. Allison, Essence of Decision,
Little Brown, 1971; and subsequent context models including Rational,
Political, Bureaucratic, and "chaos theory".) (07)
Cheers, (08)
Bob (09)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Duane Nickull
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:29 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Re: Unambiguous context information (010)
Nicholas: (011)
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: (012)
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. (013)
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. (014)
<quote who="me">
Are humans' axioms of 'universal truths' tainted by our own arrogance in
assuming our perceptions are ubiquitous?
</quote> (015)
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. (016)
There are a number of contextual variables that seem to have the ability
to contort truth tables. (017)
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") (018)
There are probably many more human being related contexts too. (019)
I am definitely going to read the Dolce work you referenced. Sounds very
interesting. (020)
Duane (021)
Internet Business Logic wrote: (022)
> 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 (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
|