>Attachment converted: betelguese2:mthworl2 1.gif (GIFf/«IC») (000E4A31)
>
>
>John, it is your use of "approximation" to
>characterize ALL models without exception here
>that I object to. Of course, depending on what
>it in the world one is trying to represent, a
>model *might* necessarily be an approximation,
>especially if one is modeling physical phenomena
>that are inherently vague or (in effect)
>infinitely complex and hence which simply cannot
>be represented with 100% accuracy. Consider,
>e.g., modeling a stochastic process or fluid
>flow by means of probability theory or
>differential equations. (01)
For the record, I agree, of course. Tarskian
models can be platonic, and can be simplified
"models" (sense 2) of reality. But they can also
be actually made up from real parts of the real
world. (02)
>However, many physical situations involve, *at a
>desired level of granularity*, NO vagueness and
>NO intractable complexity at all, as in my
>previous example involving faculty and
>administrators at Texas A&M. Many ontologies
>involve this kind of sharply delineated,
>unambiguously representable information. Your
>diagram above belies this fact and suggests that
>models are always in some way false or
>inaccurate. It just ain't so. (03)
Quite. (04)
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (05)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (06)
|