ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as standards

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Doug Holmes <dholmes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 10:31:16 -0800
Message-id: <99C771A1-4A1F-4C31-B437-3D4FB018F5A4@xxxxxxx>
Are we not discussing "using ontologies as standards"?  That seems to  
be a different from "discussing standards for ontology".  Both are  
fascinating discussions, but its confusing to mix them in the same  
thread.
Doug    (01)

On Jan 7, 2009, at 9:46 AM, John F. Sowa wrote:    (02)

> Pat,
>
> You are pushing an ideology that has no basis in (a) human psychology,
> (b) linguistics and lexicography, (c) scientific methodology, or
> (d) the way logicians specify predicates in logic.
>
> PC> If you can describe the term "space" by use of other terms, then
>> you are in effect saying either that (1) there are multiple theories
>> of "space" that can be described in terms of more primitive elements;
>> or (2) both theories are alternative logically consistent views of
>> the same phenomenon that can be accommodated in a single ontology
>> (i.e. there is a translation of anything in empty space to anything
>> in matter-dependent space).  In either case there is still a set of
>> basic primitives that can be used to compose more complex concepts.
>
> No.  There's a third option.  Actual practice in every branch of
> science and engineering uses a multiplicity of *mutually inconsistent*
> theories, each of which is suitable for some range of applications.
>
> Newtonian space and Einsteinian space are mutually inconsistent, and
> there are no "common primitives" from which they are composed.  But
> for most interactions of macroscopic objects on earth, the errors
> of the simpler Newtonian theory are far less than the errors in
> measurement.  Therefore, nobody uses Einstein's equations to compute
> what happens when a car goes down the highway.
>
> At the most fundamental levels of physics there is no such thing as
> a unified theory of everything, including space and time.  And many
> of the hypotheses about space and time that have been proposed are
> so outlandish that they have no mapping to the way that people
> usually think and talk.
>
> There are fundamental terms in physics that have been used for
> centuries, but their axioms in different theories are very,
> very different:  space, time, mass, energy, etc.  There are
> no primitives from which other definitions are composed.
>
> I have no objection about people who want to do research on
> primitives or UFOs.  But those ideas are far more confusing than
> helpful in discussing standards for ontology.
>
> John
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    (03)



_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (04)

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