John (01)
Many thanks. It is more clear now! (02)
Therefore, the models and theories of physics would be even more
difficult to explain to each other in different languages! It certainly
helps with Math as a common "language". That allows one to use minimal
descriptors with maximum information shared, if experiences are shared,
as you describe them. (03)
Similar to negation, many concepts in physics are explained largely by
equations such as general relativity, Kerr formalisms for black hole
using tensors, particles and fields, vacuum and dark energy, etc. (04)
Is there a scope for visualization (I mean models of physics that live
in mind - not pictures) sharing by means other than math as a common
language? (05)
Will it be graphs and / or Triples to show relationships among objects?
And eventually neural type notations as we evolve to those levels of
communications in which ontologies can help? (06)
Apreciate your time and effort. (07)
Ravi (08)
(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (09)
Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (010)
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com (011)
Professional viewpoints do not necessarily imply organizational
endorsement. (012)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F.
Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 4:07 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Wittgenstein and the pictures (013)
Ravi, (014)
Common experience is a prerequisite for two or more people to
understand one another, even when they both speak what might be
called the "same" language. But experience includes much more
than just visual images. (015)
RS> ... do not the visualizations (since people do not want to
> call them picture theory of theory meaning) and mental constructs
> (models) expressed audio-visually or through subsequent clarification
> processes (similar to silent movies?) get us to communicate cross
> culturally and beyond restrictions of a particular language? (016)
Visualizations, by themselves, are not sufficient. The same picture
can be interpreted in many different ways. Trying to get meanings
across just be pointing is extremely difficult without some degree
of shared experience. (017)
For example, if you point to somebody's head, are you pointing
to (a) person, (b) head, (c) face, (d) nose, (e) nostril? (018)
And why are you pointing? (a) to designate a person or part of
a person that had been discussed, (b) to order that person to be
(c) rewarded, (d) banished, (e) punished, (f) praised, (g) executed? (019)
The number of possible "meanings" of an image is vastly *greater*
than the number of conventional meanings of a word. (020)
> ... rather than depending too much on text! (021)
It is sometimes said that a picture can be worth a thousand words.
But it is also true a single word can sometimes be worth a thousand
pictures. One very powerful word is "no". But there is no picture
that can say "no" -- except by a convention that was originally
explained in words. (022)
John (023)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
|