[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontological Assumptions of FOL

To: "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:10:01 +0700
Message-id: <c09b00eb0703171910q122879fdtd2d4a031f86357b0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Chris    (01)

 let me just argue with a couple of the points you make    (02)

> Certainly true.  Tarski interpretations can serve as models of the world
> but are not identical to it.  However, those models are often capable of
> capturing all of the relevant structure of some piece of the world that
> we're interested in representing.    (03)

A model is finite and its properties are clearly determined.
A model is more static than reality, in the sense that is not subject
to the same
dynamic changes that a real object is.    (04)

 Reality is the product of endless causal relationships (think chaos
theory) that cannot be a captured. I would argue that a model can
capture all the properties of its real object only if  all the
depedencies and causal relationships associated with the real object
can also be captured and represented in the model. The paper portrait
of a person can be perfectly identical, but it does not get old with
time in the same way as the person does (person wrinkles, portrait
goes yellow instead)    (05)

The universe is infinite, and no model can replicate infinity in its entirety.    (06)

 I'll grant you that
> sets are mathematical abstractions (though there is no reason not to
> count them as real for all that),    (07)

Now this is a very very worrying trend which I have seen going around a lot
. When people (not  you Chris, also the many who others ) start
failing to see the idifference between a real object and their
representation, and all the consequences and implication this
distinction imposes, I wouls say that they have lost their ability to
make a judgement about anything.
Or maybe you meant 'count them as REAL MODEL?' A mathematical
abstraction is a real representation, but does not capture nor
reproduce all the aspects of an object.    (08)

> but the smell of coffee, the colors of
> the rainbow, and the shape of the Sydney opera house are all properties.
> Do you think they are mathematical abstractions?  While they are in some
> sense abstract, perhaps, they don't seem mathematical in nature to me at
> all,    (09)

The smell of coffe, the colors of the rainbow and the shape of a building
are very physical. You can perceive their existence through your
senses thanks to their physical properties, that can be measured via
standard science,    (010)

(see how metaphysical is this article: The Physics of Smell
http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/www_solar/summer_talks/andrew_horsfield.pdf)    (011)

 Light is a physical matter.  Their meaning and importance to your
life may be more difficult to model than their physical properties,
the smell of coffee does something to me that cannot be meaningfully
conveyed by their corresponding chemical formulas.    (012)

and moreover they seem to me to be intimately connected to the real
> world.
Reality is the sum of everything that is true. The pillars, the
fomulas, the drawing, the environmental fear, the commercial
opportunitis and all the other dimensions of a bridge
that make up its reality. None of these aspects diminishes the
importance of another aspect, the mathematical representation of the
bridge is no more or no less valid than
any other description of it, including a portrait - however it does
fill a different function.    (013)

> Perhaps with regard to the *specific* things, properties and relations
> it assumes to exist (though I frankly find this *exceedingly* doubtful)
> but *not* with regard to the basic logical categories -- unless perhaps
> one hews to some sort of 19th century anthropological myth about the
> Inscrutable East.    (014)

The inscrutable east is at our doorstep Chris. Western science has
been good for centuries at disregarding eastern thought because it was
so difficult to make sense of (still is if you ask me) , but now it
has to confront that the world extends beyond what we can see and
comprehend, and that maybe we need to complement our thinking with
something else.
 Western logic will have to merge with eastern logic (non logic by
your account, quantum logic maybe?) and will change science,
philosophy and physics. Even sofware engineering and organisational
theory has been influenced by eastern thinking over the past ten years
or so (cf Nonaka)    (015)

I think there are more chinese speakers in the world than english
speakers for now.
Fortunately for us. English is more efficient for web communication,
so we still have some kind of advantage there, although I dont know
for how long.    (016)

> > we are in danger of confusing a representation of the world with the
> > world we are representing.
> I don't think anyone here is in any such danger.
>    (017)

a few posts, including some of lines above seem to hint to that mixup    (018)

>    (019)

> Hm, well, that might be true, but if you seriously don't think you can
> describe some domain in terms of propertied objects -- objects, perhaps,
> of a very complex sort -- then that domain, while perhaps of vital
> interest to mystics and shamans, is utterly irrelevant to ontological
> engineering, as it is incapable of being axiomatized.    (020)

Or maybe it means that we need to evolve our description languages to capture
more subtle properties, especially those that cannot be captured by
the basic physical senses, so that we cannot measure, yet they exist
cause we 'perceive' them    (021)

I somuch  like metaphysicas. I may not be able to respond to posts
regularly while travelling
cheers    (022)

Paola Di Maio    (023)

>    (024)

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    (025)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>