''Do you know anything at all about quantum physics, or indeed physics
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
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
>>----- 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'
>>>>''Now we must separate ontological truth and truth about accidental
>>>>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
> 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 (010)