Azamat, (01)
I have no objection to a statement like that: (02)
> As a matter of fact, reality, the world, existence, or the
> universe is all that exists, physically or mentally, materially
> or conceptually. (03)
But as I said in my note to Chuck, I want a very clear distinction
between the terminology we use to talk about that reality and the
symbols that we use in any language, natural or artificial. (04)
> And there is single underlying ontological dynamic reality
> existing in several forms and levels: physical space-time
> reality; personal reality (remember logical ontologies);
> phenomenological reality (remember dolce); commonsense world
> (remember cyc); semantic reality (remember sw); social reality. (05)
This statement is a bunch of symbols. It's not a bad bunch of
symbols, but somebody else might have a different way of putting
together a bunch of symbols that characterize the reality (as
described in the first quotation above) in a way that differs
in minor ways or even in major ways. (06)
Some of those symbolic representations may be better than others,
and I'll keep an open mind about the possibility that there might
even be a single best representation, if we could ever find it.
However, I don't believe that any such *best* representation
could ever be discovered until all of science has reached its
ultimate state of completion: nothing is left to be discovered.
And I don't expect that to happen for a long, long time. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|