Some comments below.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Pat Hayes" <<mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx>phayes@xxxxxxx>
>>To: "Azamat Abdoullaev"
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:15 PM
>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning
>>WebArchitecture and LinkedData
>> > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hayes"
>>>>To: "Azamat" <<mailto:abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>Cc: "[ontolog-forum] "
>>>>Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 8:33 PM
>>>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Terminology Question concerning
>>>>WebArchitecture and LinkedData
>>>>>>''A common world model'', or a single global ontology, is a necessary
>>>>>>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.
> Im afraid it is highly relevant. I wish it
> weren't, but it is. Any real ontology, as opposed
> to a general dream of an ontology, needs to
> grapple with issues such as this. And in any
> case, my point here is that people do not agree.
> If it were the case that people typically had no
> opinion on matters like this, then maybe that
> might be some (very weak) evidence that these
> issues are irrelevant; but that is not what one
> finds. In fact, people do have very firm
> opinions, deeply held, and they often find any
> other views than their own almost impossible to
> understand without careful study. They use terms
> like 'ridiculous' and 'implausible' and 'wildly
> counterintuitive' and 'incoherent' when faced
> with the other point of view. All of which
> strongly suggests to me (and there is
> laboratory-grade evidence to back this up) that
> people may well have extremely different
> ontologies in their heads.
3D endurance theory and 4D perdurance theory are just special attempts to
explain the continuity over time of material objects, their persistence and
identity. That objects have temporal parts (perdurantism) as much as
parts (endurantism) is not something making a great point. Although, it
might be funny for the fiction writers to apply such ideas to time travel
Original Sin, or something of this irreal topic. Now imagine that You ( a
sequence of temporal parts as well) are responsible for the Adam and Eve's
sins, just because humanity is a temporally continous whole, where each
temporal part is liable for misdeeds of other temporal parts.
This issues presents only some special aspects of the standard ontological
problem of change and identity, which can be principally solved just by
fundamental, or universal ontology. Neither perdurantists nor endurantists
(exdurantists, wormists, or what-not) are of great use in establishing a
true relationship between change and identity.
>>>>>>A fundamental ontology is not a matter of choice or discussion. It is
>>>>>>essential constituent of any knowledge, human or
>>>>>>any reasoning, natural or artificial, of any language, natural or
>>>>>>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
> Set theory assumes sets and (in some cases)
> proper classes, nothing else. Algebraic topology
> assumes topological spaces (which include
> continuous mappings) and groups (with
> homomorphisms) nothing else.
The things here look more interesting. By the way, ''nothing'', or
''nonentity'' or ''nonbeing'', interpreted as the empty set, is another
>> No wonder that the originator of set theory in his foundational work
>> (Cantor, 1883), considered his creation as an extension of a classical
> What ontologies even existed in 1883?
>>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) .
> By all means point me at it. I doubt if we will
> agree on its contents, though :-)
To my mind, any professional criticism, agreeable or disagreeble, is of
valuable use. The content will be emailed to day, with a humble request to
return your comments as soon as you can.
>>>> Also all the great mathematicians have been also good ontologists
>>>>>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
> 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 http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (02)