Wacek, (01)
I wasn't discussing God: (02)
> I actually appealed for an example, not for a discussion
> about God... (03)
I was discussing the concept of perfect models or descriptions,
and to emphasize the difficulty of having any such things, I
called the perfect description (or ontology) of the entire
universe MoG. (04)
And I related it to the very similar points made by Leibniz:
we can have perfect descriptions (or axiomatizations) of
mathematical theories, but not of any empirical subject. (05)
However, I agree with Pat that it is possible to have useful
approximations for many empirical subjects. With very careful
design and management, it is even possible to extend those
approximations to a considerable degree (e.g., the entire
computer documentation for the Boeing 787). (06)
But don't expect such extensions to become routine without
very tight management over large groups of people and computer
systems and very large sums of money (in the billions). (07)
Even then, if you push the effort too far, you run into the MoG
problem. And I suspect that some things people are wishing for
in this forum are getting dangerously close to the MoG. (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)
|