Foundation Ontology, as the science of entities
(substances, states, changes) and their interrelationships, covers
physics, the science of material substances (matter), states (forms,
shapes, sizes) and changes (energy) and their interrelationships
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2008 8:41
Subject: Physical Grounding [was
Of the three methods of grounding symbols mentioned
the one most fitting for a Foundation Ontology (FO) is the first.
The first method implies that the physical universe is
by humans as functioning organisms. The first method does
assume transcendent reality, whatever that might be.
Is there firmer grounding for a Foundation Ontology than
the material universe?
What forms of physical substance need be considered
in a FO other than solid objects, liquids, or gases?
What attributes of objects need be considered other than
physical attributes such as shape and size?
What attributes of liquids need be considered other than
physical attributes such as volume?
What attributes of gases need be considered other than
physical attributes such as density?
What changes in material substance need to be considered
other than changes in internal constitution or changes in location?
What other than
(a) physical substance and
(b) change in physical substance
needs to be considered in a
On Aug 23, 2008, at 6:08 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
That is an accurate description, since it may be desirable that
terms of an ontology would be grounded in actual entities in the
world, but there is no way to ensure that any particular version
On Aug 24, 2008, at 6:38 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:
there are three methods of grounding the symbols we use:
1. Direct experience with the referents by perception and
2. Indirect connections to experience by associations created
patterns of words that are more directly
3. Communication by means of natural languages with other
whose grounding for the symbols is more direct