Ravi, (01)
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 3:35 AM, Christopher Menzel <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 12:39 -0500, ravi sharma wrote:
>> Chris
>> How do we properly use uncertainty inherent in nature other than
>> through statisitical mathematics and now also through uncertainty
>> ontologies (ref: GMU Symposium on subject in 2008)?
>
> I don't really have any idea. These questions fall entirely out of my
> areas of expertise. I'm not sure why you are asking me. (02)
The answer to your question is "nobody knows." It is not even a widely
accepted problem. (03)
John Sowa talks sometimes about an "infinite lattice of theories", but
it is not clear how this would work. (04)
It is to John's credit that he is one of the very few people who
consistently push this problem. (05)
As should be clear from my posts here, I believe you can model
physical processes, or word associations, computationally, working
directly with observations, and because of undecidability get the
effect of uncertainty in associated concepts/theories. (06)
Briefly that you model properties of interest to you by directly
generalizing word associations or observations, and get something like
uncertainty in associated concepts, because of
undecidability/computational irreducibility. (07)
-Rob (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|