[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning WebArchitecture and

To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 23:24:21 +0300
Message-id: <002701c7ce30$9e9e6040$010aa8c0@homepc>

Some comments below.

>>>>''A common world model'', or a single global ontology, is a necessary and
>>>>sufficient condition of powerful intelligent systems.
>>>Well, that is wrong both ways round. It is certainly not
>>>sufficient: an ontology by itself, no matter how global or common
>>>or all-encompassing, does not DO anything, and intelligence is only
>>>revealed in activity of some kind. And it is not necessary, since
>>>the only exemplars we have of intelligence are ourselves - human
>>>intelligence - and we do not have a single common world model.
>>You do have it. Just don't feel it.
> No, we really do not have a single common ontology. This is quite
> evident when one tries to get people to agree on a formal ontology.
> They seriously disagree - that is, they each find the other's point
> of view insane, and will argue for hours, in some cases for years -
> about questions such as:
> -- is the paint on the wall of a room in the room, or part of the room?
> -- is saying that a cat is eating at a time t the same as saying that
> the temporal part of the cat at t is eating?
> -- is a cat at a time t the same thing as the same cat at a different time t'?
> and many, many others.
This is a sort of sophistical technicalities, created by endurantists and perdurantists, and irrelevant to a serious discussion.
>>>>A fundamental ontology is not a matter of choice or discussion. It is an
>>>>essential constituent of any knowledge, human or machine-understandable, of
>>>>any reasoning, natural or artificial, of any language, natural or formal, of
>>>>any artefacts, physical or intelligent,
>>>Sorry, but this is nonsense. Reasoning takes place in mathematics,
>>>for example, without the benefit of a fundamental ontology.
>>Sorry, but this is a real nonsense. All great mathematical theories
>>are underpinned by fundamental ontology, its categories and rules.
> What categories and rules of an ontology are required for, say,
> algebraic topology, or formal set theory?
the universe, set, class, entity, object, structure, order and relationship. No wonder that the originator of set theory in his foundational work (Cantor, 1883), considered his creation as an extension of a classical ontology.

Cantor, G. (1883). Foundations of a General Theory of Aggregates. In W. Ewald  (Ed.) (1996). From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics. 2 Vols. Oxford: Oxford Uni. Press.

Exploiting your interest and expertise, and for more systematic answer, i am ready to present for your editorial comments the Chapter III titled,
THE WORLD CODE: Mathematical Ontology as the Real Road to Reality (9 pages, single spaced) .
> Pat
>>  Also all the great mathematicians have been also good ontologists
>>like Cantor.
>>>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
>>>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416   office
>>>Pensacola (850)202 4440   fax
>>>FL 32502 (850)291 0667    cell
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416   office
> Pensacola (850)202 4440   fax
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667    cell
> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us      

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)

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