Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology

[ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

John, Azamat

 

Creation of universe is a pre-requisite to tiny planets such as this Earth and life forms as we know today. Reference has been made consistent with Nasadiya Sukta of Rigveda in the past on the only reason for this creation being Desire (Wish) - a poor translation but resulting in a vortex in a still water or in a ocean of radiation to create something - form, shape properties of matter ,etc..If one could define pre-existence prior to creation of universe then by one or multiple big-bangs one would create physical universe with comprehensible properties as observed today.

 

Einstein or in Particle physics, Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek who discovered Quarks and Gluons have not yet said the last word as we still are lacking understanding of unification, dark matter and dark energy. Grey Holes (light escapes from corners as per Kerr matrices, Chandrasekhar and Hawking) allow some further understanding but either the Large Hadron Collider or astrophysical observations will take us to deeper theories and only very knowledgeable people will again comprehend the same first, such as this august body and yourselves and other physicists.

 

 Azamat said this wonderfully. Lot of basis of Indian philosophy has been to prove that what appears real is really not and the real is (the supreme?) or "that" hence can be imagined asymptotically?? Even physicists today tend to agree that universe- is understood by each differently, even the models!

Thus positions or statements #1 and #2 in the example stated are untenable especially together as each of the example itself is questionable including the definition or common understanding of the creator(s) e.g. he-she-it-or-they? We can however only surmise the observations and hopefully share effects of understanding / knowledge as well, thus indicating something or some order in nature that even defines and practices laws of physics, biology, genetics, and epi-genetics that seems to affect as much as genetically distinct regimen.

On the previous thread - thanks for compliments Azamat, what I would still like to pursue is a hope that we can define References (URLs and URIs not only by referring to a web-location or simple relationships among two Things, but that we also carry some agreed notions and notations of how semantically rich the URl is in the context, and also level of its ontological expressivity? If I am on the right track, then by matching levels, people with similar knowledge of URLs of similar onto-maturity indices can probably perform higher cognition tasks with brevity (such as you ontologists indicate with Math, CL), but with richer predicate analysis, etc.

 

Regards.

 

 

Ravi 

 

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Women are not real, he tells himself, and derives great comfort from the
thought -- there are no such things.  This doctrine let us call ontological
misogyny...Source:  http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm

Indeed, John.
If one says "is" when he thinks it is not, or say "is not" when we think it
is, he lies.
But if one says "it is" when it is not, or say "it is not" when it is in the
real world, we only talk of ontological commitments, as antirealism or
irrealism or nominalism. "My reality is not your reality; we live in
different worlds; in my world no events exists; for my reality, all
relations are nonrealities; in my universe all states and qualities are
fictions; for me only physical objects exist; in my cosmos no reality is
real...".
Anti-realism to ontological entities, claiming about the non-reality of
nonobservable and nontangible entities with human senses (currently abstract
entities), is becoming fashionable intellectual style.
Azamat Abdoullaev

----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <semantic-web@xxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 4:22 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology


> Azamat,
>
> That is an extreme version of nominalism:
>
>> "events are primarily linguistic or cognitive in nature.
> > That is, the world does not really contain events. Rather, events
> > are the way by which agents classify certain useful and relevant
> > patterns of change."
>> http://motools.sourceforge.net/event/event.html
>> I read many event ontologies, but this one is the most idiosyncratic,
> > softly speaking.
>
> Unfortunately, that point of view was fairly widespread among
> 20th century analytic philosophers.  Some of them even claimed
> that all the laws of physics are merely verbal (or mathematical)
> summaries of observations.
>
> That view is true of some so-called laws, such as Bode's law,
> which states a simple numerical formula for the distance of the
> planets from the sun.  Most physicists, however, are realists
> with regard to the laws of physics:  they believe that there is
> something real underlying the laws that have been tested and
> verified under many kinds of conditions by large numbers of
> experimenters.
>
> The option of treating events as real and allowing quantified
> variables to range over events is usually called 'event semantics'
> and attributed to Donald Davidson.  However, Peirce insisted that
> it was appropriate to quantify over events long before Davidson,
> and Whitehead made events the central focus of his ontology.
>
> Furthermore, Davidson had taken Whitehead's course when he
> was an undergraduate at Harvard.  He was so enthusiastic about
> Whitehead's approach that he decided to study for a PhD in
> philosophy at Harvard.
>
> Unfortunately, Davidson was suckered into a "bait and switch"
> deal because Whitehead retired, and Davidson was stuck with
> Quine as his thesis advisor.  Quine was a nominalist who had
> no sympathy with Whitehead's philosophy, so Davidson couldn't
> write his dissertation on event semantics under Quine.
>
> But Davidson did return to event semantics after he got tenure
> and didn't have to "suffer the slings and arrows" of the
> nominalists.  But it would be more appropriate to call event
> semantics the Plato-Aristotle-Peirce-Whitehead-Davidson theory.
>
> And by the way, you could also add the logician Alonzo Church
> to the anti-Quine, anti-nominalist group.  Church presented the
> following paper at Harvard, especially because he knew it would
> annoy Quine:
>
>    http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
>
> Following is the title and opening paragraph of that paper.
>
> John
> _________________________________________________________________
>
> The ontological status of women and abstract entities
>
> By Alonzo Church
>
> Goodman says somewhere that he finds abstract entities difficult to
> understand.  And from a psychological viewpoint it is certainly his
> dislike and distrust of abstract entities which leads him to propose an
> ontology from which they are omitted.  Now a misogynist is a man who
> finds women difficult to understand, and who in fact considers them
> objectionable incongruities in an otherwise matter-of-fact and
> hard-headed world.  Suppose then that in analogy with nominalism the
> misogynist is led by his dislike and distrust of women to omit them from
> his ontology.  Women are not real, he tells himself, and derives great
> comfort from the thought -- there are no such things.  This doctrine let
> us call ontological misogyny...
>
> Source:  http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/church.htm
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>


_________________________________________________________________
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

-- 
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile
_________________________________________________________________
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)