Paola made the point that we've discussed these issues before and noted : (01)
Paola>important point you make - . reality is one, (02)
but I think we all agree that R its so vast and so detailed, and so complex,
that humans cannot grasp reality in its entirety - especially given to hardware
limitations (only two eyes, two ears, two partitions in a temporal brain, etc) (03)
Paola>Plus there are individual beliefs that cause people to 'filter' what they
see/learn/know based on some assumptions .. (04)
This argument on the consequences of the vastness of reality is something that
Pat Hayes took on earlier (see
http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-07/msg00096.html
<http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-07/msg00096.html> ) from
the discussion launched by Barry with: (05)
Barry > If we have a sentence in a biology textbook, say 'blood cells are
> non-nucleated', then is this about cells in reality (as I, and I
Barry> guess common sense, would assume) or about cells in the biology model? (06)
Pat responded (07)
P>"Quite. (08)
P>"We have come close to this particular debate in this forum before. (09)
P>"There seems to be an intuition along these lines:. (1) Reality is way
P>"more complicated than any description of it can do justice to. (1a)
P>"Even a small part of reality is way more complicated, etc.. (1b
P>"[optional]) Reality itself has no categories or concepts, so any
P>"description must impose a conceptual/cultural/whatever bias to the
P>"cold unculturated facts.) (2) Therefore, to say that our descriptions
P>"are 'about reality' is hubris, since (3) if they really were about
P>"this unreachably complicated (or non-cultural) reality, then they
P>"would have to be unimaginably complex themselves, because the only
P>"way we could claim such 'aboutness' would be to describe said reality
P>"so comprehensively that our descriptions could not possibly be about
P>"anything else. (4) But our descriptions are not unimaginably complex;
P>"in fact, they are pathetically simple. (5) So they cannot really be -
P>"or, perhaps, we cannot with justification claim that they really are
P>"- about actual reality. (6) So, they must be about something else, a
P>"kind of simplified version of reality, in fact, a simplified *model*
P>"of reality, which stands between our language and real reality like a
P>"gauze curtain (or maybe the wall of a cave) and (7) is just complex
P>"enough that our descriptions can with certainty be said to be about
P>"it, but (8) which may or may not be a true model of the awfully
P>"complex real reality: but (9) to determine that accuracy is not a
P>"matter for linguistic semantics, which by the very nature of things
P>"can only speak of the relationship between language and this model,
P>"not about the other relationship between this model and the real
P>"world it models. " (010)
Pat's judgement of the model is that "the central error in this line of
reasoning seems to me to be
step (3) and its conclusion step (5). True, all our descriptions are
culturally biassed, incomplete, inadequate, etc.. All the same, they
can still be about the actual world, in all its uncultural complex
glory. " (011)
The argument about this particular formlation stopped with that email, but even
earlier discussions, I think by John Sowa, presented a different view. (012)
Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop
<https://mail.em-i.com/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop> (013)
Executive Secretariat
Semantic Technology
EM&I
Suite 350 455 Spring park Place
Herndon VA 20170
703-742-0585 (014)
________________________________ (015)
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sun 7/22/2007 4:51 AM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerningWeb Architectureand
LinkedData (016)
Matthew, (017)
important point you make - . reality is one,
but I think we all agree that R its so vast and so detailed, and so complex,
that humans cannot grasp reality in its entirety - especially given to hardware
limitations (only two eyes, two ears, two partitions in a temporal brain, etc)
Plus there are individual beliefs that cause people to 'filter' what they
see/learn/know based on some assumptions
(what they believe possible, or believe right, for example). I think thats more
like software. (after Johns talk i became so aware that I use analogy a lot) (018)
So, while I agree that there is only one (R) I am also pretty sure that as you
say, the average human in our space-time dimension has a limited view of that
reality (r) Added to the personal, social, cultural, educational differences
and DNA makeup etc, we have lots of diferent views. We also have unlimited ways
of representig, expressing and communicating such views.
So, while all the 'r's are good, can be valid, and have some purpose (build
bridge), we should admit that the advancement of knowledge can happen only when
we learn how to set aside our preconceivd beliefs, which together with other
factors constitute the boundaries of our view, and look for what's behind the
scope of our limited view (019)
In asbtract terms, a universal ontology can be many things, not better
explained nor easily grasped, not last a way of exploring reality and the
world, a cognitive model of the known universe as such. Last I heard of it,
Einstein had this vision, and somehow I hope more current scientists lik
stephen hawkings are eagerly awaiting for developments (020)
One of the proposed aspects of a 'unviersal scheme' , that I believe should
be easily managed by this community (c'mon lets stretch)
is a decent (by decent I mean adequate to human knowledge) semantic schema to
represent human language on the web - just one of the formalisms that can be
derived from such a top level view/representation (
realistic of not, that depends on one's bredth of view of reality, would you
agree?) (021)
>From what I have seen so far, this is what Azamat is currently pursuing, and I
>look forward to be reading and understanding more of his work, and most
>particulary to test its validity in a run time environment, and to see the
>benefits of the application of theoretical level work (022)
I dont think we should dismiss upfront something that we dong even know what it
is, kind of 'something cannot exist' argument before the subject has been
defined even. (023)
Cheers
Paola DM (024)
On 7/22/07, matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx <matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: (025)
Dear Azamat and others, (026)
I agree with Azamat - there is a single universal ontology.
(Just because I believe there is a single reality). (027)
Unfortunately, I can see there are a lot of other ontologies
too, and it seems hard to determine which is the right one
(and I doubt it is available to be discerned yet). (028)
Regards (029)
Matthew West
Reference Data Architecture and Standards Manager
Shell International Petroleum Company Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Registered number: 621148
Registered office: Shell Centre, London SE1 7NA, United Kingdom (030)
Tel: +44 20 7934 4490 Mobile: +44 7796 336538
Email: matthew.west@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.shell.com <http://www.shell.com/>
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ (031)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]On Behalf Of Azamat
> Sent: 21 July 2007 23:02
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerningWeb
> Architecture and LinkedData
>
>
> Patrick Durusau wrote: I am sure Azamat will formulate his
> own response but
> I can answer for
> myself since I share the opinion that there is no "universal
> ontology."
>
> Dear Patrick,
> Let me just ensure you that there is a ''universal
> ontology'', '' global
> ontology'', '' master ontology'', or '' standard ontology'', as a
> comprehensive consistent world model.
> Otherwise, no Semantic Web, no artificial intelligent systems, etc.
> Azamat
> http://www.eis.com.cy <http://www.eis.com.cy/>
>
>
> Patrick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Patrick Durusau" <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" < ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 12:23 AM
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning Web
> Architecture and LinkedData (032)
<<winmail.dat>>
_________________________________________________________________
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 (01)
|