[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Interesting Category - Chindogu

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:00:38 -0600
Message-id: <p06230914c3b287ff85a5@[]>
At 3:57 PM -0800 1/14/08, Duane Nickull wrote:
>On 1/14/08 1:17 PM, "David Whitten" <david.j.whitten@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  Chindogu Ten Commandments
>>  # 1 A chindogu must not actually be used
>>  # 2 It must have some function.
>>  # 3 It must have an anarchic element.
>>  # 4 It must be a tool for everyday life.
>>  # 5 It must not actually be put on the market.
>>  # 6 It must not be only for the purpose of humor.
>>  # 7 It must not be for black humor.
>>  # 8 "Dirty" jokes are forbidden.
>>  # 9 It must not be for profit.
>>  #10 It must be usable internationally.
>Most of the examples seem to violate at least one of these commandments.
>For example, any of these that are demonstrated seem to violate #1 ( they
>have actually been used to demonstrate).
>As a long time Kawakami fan, I have to both admire his work but find this
>list raises bigger issues.  Our universe, for example, is a paradox of
>logic.  According to most logic, nothing can go on eternally    (01)

Wha? Where did you get that notion from? Most 
logics say nothing at all about eternity or 
otherwise, but those that do address temporal 
continuity allow for eternal entities.    (02)

>yet both time
>and space apparently must.    (03)

Again, why must they? There are solutions to 
Einstein's general relativity equations in which 
the universe is finite in all dimensions 
(including time.)    (04)

>   Quantum physics and human perception seem to be
>irreconcilable (my opinion)    (05)

In what sense irreconcileable? QT can be used to 
help explain why the world at our scale looks the 
way it does, eg why foliage looks green rather 
than, say, orange.    (06)

>  perhaps due to the fact our own brains are too
>limited to comprehend the larger realm in which we exist.
>The question that arises out of this is "how can we define ontologies based
>on logic in a universe that apparently exists in contradiction of that
>logic"?    (07)

That might be an interesting question if it made sense.    (08)

Pat    (09)

>"Speaking only for myself"
>Senior Technical Evangelist - Adobe Systems, Inc.
>Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
>Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
>My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
>Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
>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)

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    (011)

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    (012)

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