To: |
"[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|

From: |
"Sharma, Ravi" <Ravi.Sharma@xxxxxxxxxxx> |

Date: |
Mon, 4 Feb 2008 11:22:39 -0700 |

Message-id: |
<D09FFCFB3952074082D4280BC24EAFA8B14C21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |

Azamat (01) I am afraid comments will take us in multiple directions (but central point is single ontology is far-far away): (02) 1. Inherently many natural phenomena are Non linear - a bit difficult to handle but need not necessarily be non-continuous. 2. Quantum to continuous is only conceptual. Coexistence is allowed in physics by Duality. Wanting to describe fine grained phenomena in coarse grains tends to be better (today, in tools) with continuous representations. 3. Are Thoughts Quanta? These are often random and discrete? Brain PET scans may say something but from past historic studies, these are often disconnected if viewed in time sequence - at least pseudo-random! 4. Chaos - is it continuous or discrete, random - partly deterministic and partly stochastic? 5. Assuming one ontology to describe whole universe is expecting that everyone is at the same wisdom level as the cause that caused "all this universe at least", if not beyond it, and if there is one single cause? We are very-very far but in physics - unification is known frontier at integrated theories but far from single formalism of universe? (03) Thanks. (04) Ravi (05) (Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (06) Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (07) 8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182 (o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com (08) -----Original Message----- From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Azamat Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 3:34 PM To: [ontolog-forum] Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology (09) Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:15 AM, Francis McCabe wrote: (010) ''I think that what is going on may be a little deeper.... Now, there is (011) some evidence that the universe is not truly continuous: it may be granular both with respect to space and with respect to time.'' (012) The universe is the largest continuous entity, continuing both in time and space. The chaos theory doesn't mystify the nature of the world more than it is. But it evidences to its puzzling complexity, it attests that the universe is a cosmic-scale nonlinear dynamic complex system governed by reciprocal interactions of its numerous parts. (013) All nonlinear effects in nature and society studied by nonlinear sciences and represented by nonlinear equations can be accounted by the same causal mechanisms: nonlinear causality (as causal loops) producing nonlinear self-acting phenomena (expressed as soliton solutions), as in general relativity, nonlinear QM, nonlinear optics, the planet's weather system, (014) global economy and finance and international politics. A timely appreciation of nonlinear effects in the global stock exchange allowed Soros (and his (015) Quantum Fund) reputedly to make billions, knowing the nonlinear behavior of economic fundamentals and risk-factors such as interest rates, commodities, currencies, stock indices. (016) The implication of chaos is the complexity of causality as the nonlinear (017) relationships between changes, processes or events, where a small input change (infinitesimal disturbances in the initial conditions) in one part of a complex system may end up in a large effect in toto. (018) So, the real meaning of ''chaos'' is not ''disorder'' but rather a higher-order dynamic organization; for a chaotic system is a deterministic and principally predictable phenomenon, whose behavior is determined by nonlinear causal laws. (019) The moral of the whole story is to build a consistent ontology of entities and relationships, including such a unique natural phenomenon as a nonlinear causality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality. (020) Azamat Abdoullaev (021) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Francis McCabe" <frankmccabe@xxxxxxx> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2008 9:15 AM Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology (022) >I think that what is going on may be a little deeper. > > |

Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Ed Barkmeyer |
---|---|

Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Randall R Schulz |

Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Azamat |

Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Azamat |

Indexes: | [Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |