John,
Your assertions about the conceptual primitives used in physics simply
have no basis in relevant experimental fact. The only way to prove or
disprove such assertions is to try to find the conceptual primitives that
can combine to create satisfactory descriptions of these alternative
theories. I am not asserting that this is certain, though experience with
the Longman suggest it is true. I am asserting that this is an important
question that needs to be properly investigated, and that there is a
reasonable way to do such an investigation while creating a useful artifact
that will be worth much more than its cost, even if the number of primitives
does not reach a final limit.
Yes, there are theories with mutually inconsistent models, and these can
be described using a common vocabulary of primitive concepts. If it was not
possible, it would be hard or impossible to even describe how such theories
differ!!
Can you agree that this is an open question worth investigating, or are
you so certain that you won't even consider the possibility? If the latter,
please give the *factual* basis for your belief. (01)
Pat (02)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (03)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:47 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Next steps in using ontologies as
> standards
>
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|