[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Len Yabloko" <lenya@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:52:01 +0000
Message-id: <W7109219029101481217271121@webmail37>
Ravi,     (01)

You wrote:    (02)

RS> "Hence while we wait for the ultimate unified theory (which we
hope will not render this life without quest!), we have to do with
approximate enough understanding for the purpose for which we intend to
use the theory or ontology."    (03)

I have a different take on John's illustrations and references.
I don't think anyone seriously involved in application of ontology is waiting 
for the "ultimate unified theory". The need for unification is not driven by 
desire to have an "ultimate theory". That possibility is simply an assumption 
behind any attempt for unification, the same way it is in modern physics where  
there are now not one but many candidates for "unified theory". If they are 
waiting for anything, then it is to find out which one is true. But that does 
not stop anyone from building machines and instruments based on existing 
theories.    (04)

Ironically there are even more candidates for unified theory of ontology, but 
dues to lack of any evidence nobody takes any one of those seriously enough to 
use as a foundation for any unified paradigm. It is a lack of instruments and 
rigorous discipline required to collect the evidence that really is a problem.
Another problem is prevailing in such vaccume doctrine of "common sense" as 
only available approach while waiting for perfect theory, which leads to 
pseudo-engineering fields like "knowledge engineering" without any theory at 
all - just evidence and plenty of encouragement coming from medieval cathedrals 
and other things built without theory.    (05)

The "use" of what we have (with the ultimate purpose in mind) is not a solution 
or even a method. We must settle on a particular framework and build an 
engineering discipline, even if that framework itself is questionable at this 
time, for the lack of better one. But that is not the same as running in all 
directions using what you have. If the "use" seems to be the most important 
thing for you, then perhaps Wittgenstein's theory of "knowledge as use" should 
be accepted and used to unify the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein    (06)

 I believe John is trying for a very long time and with some notable success to 
use Pierce's theory as such unifying framework. I support him on this 100%.     (07)

--Len    (08)

Len Yabloko, Owner/CEO
Next Generation Software
www.ontospace.net    (09)

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)

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