>Some new citations of the day:
>''what actually exists is the square root of a probability of the
>existence of an
>entity, rather than an actual entity.''
>''quarks and photons... have a fixed state while they exist, so
>cannot be in different states.''
><causality is the basic mechanism of the world changes> '' Not for
>about the last 200 years.''
>''Er... rubbish. Sorry, but there doesn't seem to be any polite way
>to put the point.'' A paragon of nonsensical talk (01)
Do you know anything at all about quantum physics, or indeed physics
generally? Find me a place in, say, Feynman's 'lectures on physics'
(or choose your favorite text from the last 50 years) where causality
plays any kind of explanatory role in modern physics. (02)
>, which i start thinking a standard state of formal logician's
>Take just one example. No time and need to go further.
>ASHA: >>Consequently, the task of ontology is to produce the truest
>fundamental explanatory schemas of all reality
>PH: > Isnt that the task of science? Almost a definition of the goal
>of science, in fact.
>The task of science is to produce the truest fundamental explanatory
>schemas of parts (domains) of reality: physics, of physical
>universe; chemistry, of chemical domain, biology, of biological
>world, social sciences of social reality, etc.
>The task of ontology is to produce the truest fundamental
>explanatory schemas of ALL REALITY. Is it really so hard to see the
Yes. There is no difference, since there are no "domains" of actual
reality. It is what it is, and there is one of it: we make "domains"
by our choices of how to conceptualize it. (04)
But in any case, on your account, ontology must encompass all of all
of the sciences, and then probably more as well. To even suggest such
a field of activity is crazy. If this is ontology, then ontology is
an impossible task. (05)
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
>To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 12:04 AM
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality
>> >Avril made a good point which seemingly missed the formal logicians' >ears:
>>>''Now we must separate ontological truth and truth about accidental things
>>>To explain the point, Ontological truth is the relationship (agreement,
>>>conformity, correspondence, mapping) between reality and the mind. Unlike
>>>the truths of mathematics and formal logics, which are purely formal and
>>>without any reference to real meanings, ontological truths are purely
>>>substantial marked with direct reference to real existence.
>>Er... rubbish. Sorry, but there doesn't seem to be any polite way
>>to put the point. This is complete nonsense. And it does not
>>address the point made by Avril: where in your contrast do truths
>>about "accidental things in nature" fit?
>>>Consequently, the task of ontology is to produce the truest fundamental
>>>explanatory schemas of all reality
>>Isnt that the task of science? Almost a definition of the goal of
>>science, in fact.
>>>, giving the primal rules of all special
>>>truths. According to Aquinas, truth is defined as an equation (agreement,
>>>correspondence) between the mind (intellect, thought, cognition) and reality
>>>(being, thing, entity), where the nature of things or the intellect may be
>>>alternatively the measure and rule of each other. Although the truth as a
>>>relative entity can reside both in the mind and in the real world, the truth
>>>in the intellect (as logical truths) can not be the cause of the truth in
>>>things (as ontological truths); for the truth or falsity of the statement
>>>(that somebody is) first depends on the fact of the somebody's being or not
>>>being. The ontological verities as the basic laws of reality occupy the
>>>highest level in the hierarchy of the kinds of truth: mental, logical,
>>>mathematical, semantic, verbal, scientific, empirical as well as moral,
>>>ethical, esthetic, and religious. A case of religious truth is the
>>>invocation, "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger",
>>>falling into the inclusive ontological statement, "There is no Entity but
>>>Being and Relationship is its agency".
>>This all sounds like incoherent ranting to me, I must confess.
>>>The explicit cases of ontological truths admitted by modern sciences are as
>>>1. there are things or (entities) in the world;
>>True, though quantum theory makes these into very peculiar kinds of
>>entity. What seems to be in the actual world, in fact, is a wave
>>function distributed over space, whose amplitude at a point, when
>>squared, provides the probability that an entity would exists at
>>the point in space, if you were to look there for it. So what
>>actually exists is the square root of a probability of the
>>existence of an entity, rather than an actual entity. I know this
>>is very peculiar, but it was you who invoked "modern science". One
>>should cite modern science only when one faces up to what modern
>>science actually tells you.
>>>2. all things have parts and properties;
>>False, according to modern science. Electrons, photons and
>>neutrinos for example have no parts.
>>>3. everything changes with respect to properties;
>>>4. the world and its entities can be in different states;
>>You need to be careful with the definition of 'state' when dealing
>>with general relativity. And quarks and photons for example have a
>>fixed state while they exist, so cannot be in different states.
>>>5. things exist in various relationships with each other;
>>I guess, though 'relationship' doesn't play much of role in current physics.
>>>6. there are changes in which substances participate;
>>What 'substances' are there in basic physics?
>>>7. changes (or events) exist as causing other changes;
>>Not in quantum theory (see above)
>>>8. time and space are sorts of relationships;
>>Not in either general relativity or quantum theory.
>>>9. causality is the basic mechanism of the world changes;
>>Not for about the last 200 years.
>>>10. the world is organized into several levels: physical, chemical,
>>>bilogical, cognitive, social, and informational.
>>Again, I don't think any science admits this notion of 'level', and
>>this notion tends to break down when one looks at it closely. In
>>any case, it seems to be a distinction between ways of thinking or
>>conceptualizing the world, rather than of reality itself.
>>Very little of the above strikes me as being accurate when taken as
>>an account of actual reality, as far as science reveals what that
>>is. And if your account is not based on science, what is it based
>>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 (07)
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 (08)
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 (09)