[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Model or Reality

To: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:48:23 -0500
Message-id: <p0623090dc2e27304b741@[]>
>Pat wrote:
>''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.
>Never mind. In any debate, always keep just facts.    (01)

True, I apologize for the ad hominem remark. But for a physicist, you 
do say some rather peculiar things.    (02)

>The fact is in your short reply you created too much nonsense for a 
>learned person, one of them follows:
>ASHA: 2. all things have parts and properties;
>PH: False, according to modern science. Electrons, photons and 
>neutrinos for example have no parts.
>This is a bad mistake even for a sixth-former.  Making up atomic 
>nuclei, PROTONS    (03)

I did not mention protons. Find me a physicist who thinks that there 
is any evidence at all that PHOTONS have parts. In fact, a photon is 
usually defined as a quantum of EM energy, and a quantum in this 
sense means that it is NOT divisible.    (04)

>and as neutrons composed of QUARKS, i.e. parts, subatomic particles 
>which MIGHT have their own subparts, etc.    (05)

Anything MIGHT be true. Using what is currently known about subatomic 
physics, however, it does not seem to be that there is any evidence 
at all that neutrinos or electrons (or indeed quarks or gluons) are 
made up from smaller particles. (They might all be vibration modes in 
10-dimensional superstrings, I gather, but this hardly seems to 
qualify as being 'made up of parts'.)    (06)

However, it is in any case an error to claim that *everything* has 
parts, since applied rigorously that would imply that space and time 
(for example) were dense, whereas physics seems to recognize a 
limiting grain size at the Planck lengths.    (07)

>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.
>PS: About quantity, quantum and divisibility, see my contribution 
>for Wikipedians on Quantity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity    (08)

I have already read it. Like your emails, it appears to be largely 
incoherent and certainly ungrammatical:    (09)

"The essential part of mathematical quantities is made up with a 
collection variables each assuming a set of values and coming as 
scalar, vectors, or tensors, and functioning as infinitesimal, 
arguments, independent or dependent variables, or random and 
stochastic quantities. "    (010)

"Quantity was first introduced as quantum, an entity having quantity."
(Not the usual definition of 'quantum'. In fact, the word 'quantum' 
was not used in English until the advent of quantum theory.)    (011)

"A small quantity is sometimes referred to as a quantulum."
(This word is not in any English dictionary.)    (012)

"Under the names of multitude come what is discontinuous and discrete 
and divisible into indivisibles, all cases of collective nouns: army, 
fleet, flock, government, company, party, people, chorus, crowd, 
mess, and number. Under the names of magnitude come what is 
continuous and unified and divisible into divisibles, all cases of 
non-collective nouns: the universe, matter, mass, energy, liquid, 
material, animal, plant, tree."    (013)

(What does it mean to say that 'tree' comes "under the name of 
magnitude"? Or that 'tree' is "continuous and unified"?)    (014)

and sometimes vacuous, at great length:    (015)

"Another fundamental feature is additivity. Additivity may involve 
concatenation, such as adding two lengths A and B to obtain a third A 
+ B. Additivity is not, however, restricted to extensive quantities 
but may also entail relations between magnitudes that can be 
established through experiments which permit tests of hypothesized 
observable manifestations of the additive relations of magnitudes."    (016)

----    (017)

But let us put aside this unseemly carping. What I asked from you was 
a defense of your claim that true ontologizing requires us to use a 
"Reality Oriented Logic", presumably different from the formal logic 
that we formalists are steeped in. Can we return to that topic?    (018)

Pat    (019)

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    (020)

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    (021)

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