|From:||ravi sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Sun, 6 Sep 2009 00:18:46 -0400|
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.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM, AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(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)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology, John F. Sowa|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] UK apology for its treatment of Turing, Rich Cooper|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology, Pavithra|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|