ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Disaster Management ontology BOF in Delft

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 08:56:39 -0400
Message-id: <46695207.7050109@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Bill and Wacek,    (01)

That is like an existence theorem in mathematics, which shows
that something exists without showing how to find an explicit
representation:    (02)

BA> You just gave us a recipe for how to make (IMO) a single ontology
 > from Sean's "inconsistent" pieces, via the use of reformulation
 > of his pieces to make them consistent, or via use of some kind
 > of paraconsistency.    (03)

vQ> I sympathize with Bill, and would like to see a counterexample
 > to what he says.    (04)

I can state another existence theorem:    (05)

  1. Any theory that has at least one instance must be consistent.    (06)

  2. Since the universe exists, any accurate description of any
     part P of the universe has that part as an instance.  Therefore,
     that description, dscr(P), must be a consistent theory.    (07)

  3. If P1 and P2 are two parts of the universe that coexist, then
     dscr(P1) and dscr(P2) must each be consistent separately, and
     their conjunction dscr(P1) & dscr(P2) must also be consistent.    (08)

  4. By induction, we can prove that the conjunction of all descriptions
     of all parts of the universe that coexist must be consistent.    (09)

  5. If we use a 4D representation of the universe and consider all
     space-time chunks as parts, then there must be a complete and
     consistent description of the entire universe for all time.    (010)

  6. Let's call that description MoG (for Mind of God).    (011)

We now have a recipe for discovering the Mind of God (or at least
a sizable chunk thereof).    (012)

BA> That was what I was trying to get to in my original note  loose
 > talk of "one single ontology for X can't ..." is usually based
 > on equally loose understanding of the terms "ontology" and "can't".    (013)

I just gave a formalizable proof that there is a method for solving
the problem.  I wish the both of you the best of luck in carrying out
the details.    (014)

John    (015)



_________________________________________________________________
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    (016)

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