ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] History of the Atomic Hypothesis

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Toby Considine" <tobyconsidine@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 16:26:54 -0400
Message-id: <b14fd7f30807271326o21c7a9d0ifba24bbd1e52b55c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To me this conversation points more to the problem of trying to extend an ontology across domains. Much was made of physicists being slow to accept atomic theory. But with what we now know of physics, it could be argued that they were correct, even if not for the reasons they thought.

Just as Newtonian mechanics is unable to deal with the complexities found in quantum mechanics, chemical atoms have little to do with modern physics.

Quantum mechanics is much richer, much more complete, and more accurate, if you want to speak from some sort of absolute truth. But honestly, if you want to build a house are drive a car, you will be far better served by ignoring quantum mechanics and relying on Newtonian than if you try the other way around.

In a similar way, atoms have given way to wave forms, with no certainty and no actual atom to work with. If you follow string theory (and I know, maybe we shouldn't) than even the certainty of wave forms instead of matter becomes suspect. Arguably, atoms are mere simplifications for the poorly informed. But whether fabricating plastics or cooking up Meth in your country single-wide, you will be better served thinking about atoms than about mathematically trevealed truth.

tc

On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Wacek Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Pat Hayes wrote:
> At 9:28 AM -0400 7/27/08, John F. Sowa wrote:
>
>
>> In summary, this discussion illustrates the point I was tying to make:
>> If we use words at a vague level (without detailed definitions and
>> axioms), we can reach agreement.  But if we try to pin down the exact
>> meanings to the level necessary for writing detailed axioms, we get
>> into an endless series of analyses and disputes about different ways
>> of doing the analysis.
>>
>
> Yes, indeedy :-)
>
>

and discouragingly (?)

vQ

_________________________________________________________________
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




--
________________________________________
"When one door closes, another opens; but we often look so long and so regretfully upon the closed door that we do not see the one which has opened for us." -- Alexander Graham Bell
________________________________________
Toby Considine
Chair, OASIS oBIX TC http://www.oasis-open.org
Toby.Considine@xxxxxxxxx
Phone: (919)619-2104
blog: www.NewDaedalus.com


_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)

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