[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality

To: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 22:30:29 +0300
Message-id: <006801c7db84$e9332e40$010aa8c0@homepc>
Pat wrote:
''Do you know anything at all about quantum physics, or indeed physics
 generally?''    (01)

Know something, having PhD in physical and mathematical sciences from 
Lebedev's Physical Institute [of the USSR Academy of Sciences], which was 
stuffed by the Nobel prizes holders: Cherenkov, Basov, Prohorov, Ginzburg 
and Sakharov, they their responsible for doctorate degrees. aAlso, i have a 
book about Information Physics.    (02)

Never mind. In any debate, always keep just facts. The fact is in your short 
reply you created too much nonsense for a learned person, one of them 
follows:    (03)

ASHA: 2. all things have parts and properties;
PH: False, according to modern science. Electrons, photons and neutrinos for 
example have no parts.    (04)

This is a bad mistake even for a sixth-former.  Making up atomic nuclei, 
PROTONS and as neutrons composed of QUARKS, i.e. parts, subatomic particles 
which MIGHT have their own subparts, etc.    (05)

I suggested that you were more competent in theoretical physics than in 
ontology. Of course, this is not a ''naive physics'', but a real science 
asking for a real mind able to master the real world .
If want to show more nonsense, just ask.    (06)

PS: About quantity, quantum and divisibility, see my contribution for 
Wikipedians on Quantity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity    (07)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pat Hayes" <phayes@xxxxxxx>
To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 9:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality    (08)

> >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
> 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.
>>, which i start thinking a standard state of formal logician's personal 
>>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 difference?
> 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.
> 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.
> Pat
>>----- 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 
>>>>in nature'.
>>>>To explain the point, Ontological truth is the relationship (agreement,
>>>>conformity, correspondence, mapping) between reality and the mind. 
>>>>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 
>>>>correspondence) between the mind (intellect, thought, cognition) and 
>>>>(being, thing, entity), where the nature of things or the intellect may 
>>>>alternatively the measure and rule of each other. Although the truth as 
>>>>relative entity can reside both in the mind and in the real world, the 
>>>>in the intellect (as logical truths) can not be the cause of the truth 
>>>>things (as ontological truths); for the truth or falsity of the 
>>>>(that somebody is) first depends on the fact of the somebody's being or 
>>>>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 
>>>>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 
>>>>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 
>>>>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 on?
>>>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
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>     (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)

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