To: |
"[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|

From: |
ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx> |

Date: |
Thu, 12 Feb 2009 16:54:30 -0500 |

Message-id: |
<f872f57b0902121354u68698ccbg84ea4c66057e048b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |

John
Your paper is excellent and I have to request you further information on how you, Pierce or Tarski would possibly describe the notion that the Universe that each of us thinks is described by the same mathematics or logic, if its realization by individual minds could be mapped? Then perhaps we will find that it is not the same but the only commonality is in the overlap among the concepts or common logic (is it the same as CL, I wonder?) i.e. universal aspects of sharable knowledge, including experience?
There is lot more there than I have read briefly - perhaps I will ask more later, due to my ignorance.
The other comment is related to Quote -These three categories clarify the issues discussed by the physicist Eugene Wigner (1960) in his classic paper "On the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences." Wigner marveled at
the success of mathematics in describing the universe and predicting the outcome of experiments before they had been carried out.- Unquote I never got the answer as clear as in his above quoted statement whenever I used to ask Wigner as to how he could describe group theory to represent quantum mechanics, especially field theory representations and those for the bound states such as nucleii, in his famous work.
I am conjecturing that perhaps Riemann's formalism provided the same motivation to Einstein in his tensorial representation of General theory of Relativity. One exception I want to make is that while the mathematics there represented the curvature of matter filled universe (Geometry aspects of gravity - nature of space in presence of matter) the real - understanding - nature of gravity, still escapes us even though gravitational lenses have been astronomically well observed and sometimes provide insights in to dark matter and dark energy aspects. Whether it will be another 30 pages of terms by Kerr metric (math) or an already established mathematical form like Riemann's that will describe the realistic nature of gravity (or Graviton!) is a question that I would like your reflection on?
PS: Of course the LHC in Geneva is approaching it from the angle of massive Higgs Boson in scattering experiments at high energy?
Best regards.
-- Thanks. Ravi (Dr. Ravi Sharma) 313 204 1740 Mobile On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:42 AM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Chris, _________________________________________________________________ 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 (01) |

Previous by Date: | [ontolog-forum] (no subject), Chris Partridge |
---|---|

Next by Date: | [ontolog-forum] Fwd: collective intelligence at DEST deadline extended, paola . dimaio |

Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Possible Worlds, John F. Sowa |

Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] standard ontology, Pat Hayes |

Indexes: | [Date]
[Thread]
[Top]
[All Lists] |