[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2009 16:10:16 +0300
Message-id: <C2BAACD0E944474C8EB7A35981AC078F@personalpc>
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean ? neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master ? that's all.'
following this anarchic semantics is neither meaningful  no efficacious. When i refer to "the laws of nature or natural laws", it means what is largely accepted in science, and not that you wish to have; when i refer to "macroevolution", it means what is generally accepted in evolutionary biology, and not what you personally prefer; when i refer to upward causation/downward caustion and forward.bckward causation, again it means what is commonly accepted in ontology, and not what you personally like, etc. Commonly accepted meanings make any dicussion and discourse and research and study just again meaningful.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 6:58 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Event Ontology


Rich Cooper


Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com


True reality is in kinds, natural kinds and species, not in individual

events but their change kinds.


No, species have constituent genes, culturally determined and individual instance behaviors, and all the appurtenances thereunto.  There is no reality in kind classifications; merely the convenience of a compressed representation and resulting communication channel conservation.  Shakespeare erred; the play is not the whole thing, just a decomposition of constituents thereof.  A plurality of other plays awaits the patient. 


Animality and humanity and rationality are

always with us, individual substances, marked by contingency and

temporality, but aimed at forming timeless global techno-organic-political

kinds, as the future Internet of things and human beings.


Or something. What have you been smoking (vaporizing)?


Without the kinds it is not possible to have scientific knowledge.


You chunk category errors uncontrollably. Possibilities are independent of the bound facts.  Look at the intensional specs gathered so far.  Then construct theories of possible explanations; bake and test.  Only some theories work with some data; the rest is prolog to integrate with the former. 



realism, when Ideas and Forms supposed to exist in their own way,


Where did they suppose this, or who supposed it?



archaic today as much as the opposite mindset that universality is a

property of words (general names) alone, forming their meaning.


Botswannans don't all speak Botswannan.  Universality is a myth. SUO's results - no universal standard ontology CAN exist - established needs for both extensional data and intensional functions (or dynamic management of sames) to establish subjective contexts in any ontology, at least IMHO.      


What makes Plato real?  He's no longer around to teach, so he can't work on the new data that have become available in the last few thousand years. 


Science opens new forms and levels of existence, individual, specific and

generic, interrelated with each other by the whole-part relationships (by

upward and backward causation).


I prefer 'forward' and 'backward' if you're referring to Markovian or Bayesian sequential models, or nonlinear rule sets, or collections of data from an initial point in time.  But causation is strictly unknowable since time keeps iterating; so far, each tick has had, or I believe will have, a tock.  Could be wrong about that; it's still not complete.  Stay tuned. 


The realization of ontological entities as the "concrete universal"


Or something.  What about plastic, elastic or spastic universals?  Concrete is so ... dense and inertial.  There's always new recursive Universes to fall back into. 


is the

singular mark and tendency of emerging meta-sciences and meta-technologies.


Actually, our present meta are just partitions, aggregations and analyses of prior data gathered and analyzed from the previous metae.  Each iteration steps anew to new metae.  Literally.  I explained that in detail in my patent specification (7,209,923)to ensure it enabled readers awake and aware of the state of the subject art. 


Try and see a principal distinction of Class (determined by single



?  what about mutually exclusive practice property pair sets like conservation and profligacy, honesty and generality, many of which are orthogonal pairs?  How about predicates based on a plurality (N,M,L...) of orthogonal pairs?  How about a recursively distributed plurality, possibly time, or a contagious habit or reaction (sneezing)?


), Kind (by set of properties), and Natural Kind (by set of lawfully

related properties).


Whose lawfully?  We each construct our own plurality of laws, at least for ourselves, based on our experiences.  It's much easier to construct laws for others, but they often don't cooperate.  Regrettable, but not repairable within free will constraints. 


A natural kind is the set of all things sharing a basic

law, while a natural species, a particular law. The reality of natural laws

implies the existence of natural kinds, and vice versa.


If that is true, we can only see things for which there are predefined laws.  So what makes predefined laws natural?  Who or what defined them?  What if the laws change?  What if there is an as yet undiscovered law (kinda likely, considering the paucity of data we've seen so far)?  We have to formulate or hypothesize or conjecture based on what's available at crunch time when we start the next tick.  Crisis; opportunity; choice; history.  The sequence has also been called: Innovative Phase, Resistive Phase, Productive Phase, and Recorded Phase; shake and iterate.      


Organic evolution, from speciation of species to macroevolution of new

classes and kinds,


Category error: the kind (class) is not the thing (species) is not the instance (Bambi); each rose has unique leaves, flowers, branches and thorns. Only after I have decided which species to put it in do I configure a law to represent that species.  There are no species other than those in our imaginations, which we keep there for convenient linguistic designations among interpretation trading partners. 


falls under Ontological Evolution (OntoGenesis), the

evolutionary development of ontological kinds of all types and sorts:

physical kinds, chemical kinds, biological kinds, mental kinds, social

kinds, and technological kinds, like the real semantic web.


Azamat Abdoullaev


The commonly used definition for Ontogeny is the developmental process of an individual from conception to death.  So an individual can be an ontology or plurality of ontologies, or can comprise the same among other stuff. 




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    (01)

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