Azamat, (01)
Those three statements are completely consistent: (02)
1. ...there must be a complete and consistent description of the
entire universe for all time. (03)
2. Instead of striving for a global consistency of everything, it
might be better to adopt methods that don't require global
consistency. (04)
3. The kind of higher level of abstraction I would recommend would
be a metalevel ontology that can relate different ontologies
and generate new categories to extend an ontology as needed. (05)
Point #1 is a statement that omniscience is possible for an infinite
mind, such as God's. It is a paraphrase of a similar point by Leibniz. (06)
Point #2 is a recognition that none of us are God. Therefore, we must
make do with less ambitious methods that do not require omniscience.
In a similar vein, Leibniz said that no finite mind (such as the mind
of any human) can ever fully explore all the aspects of any empirical
study. (07)
Point #3 is a recommended strategy for making incremental improvements
to our limited methods. It won't let us achieve #1 in any finite time,
but it might help us extend and relate our limited views. (08)
John (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|