On 24/08/2010 1:59 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
Hi Ferenc,
I’m trying to understand why you
apply space-time to identity recognition. If
Aristotle had an idea (the
syllogism), that idea is the same one we use today,
and often debate the intricacies
of on this list.
Since it’s the same idea, but
with a
different space-time boundary, it seems identical to
itself for that reason –
time and space do not bound abstract concept objects
like they sometimes do with
physical objects. But even there, the pottery shard
made in Egypt
5,000
years ago is still the same pottery shard found by
some Indiana Jones in 1935. So
even there, the time space bracketing isn’t necessary
or even useful,
IMHO.
Are you sure? The pottery shard made in Egypt 5,000 years ago was
trash from a broken pot. The current view of that would be more
along the lines of priceless artifact detailing an important time in
human history.
Time and space are good
bracketing
properties for some applications, but not for all
kinds of objects when
identity is being modeled, IMHO.
Re the observer’s relationship
with
the object, it seems that the
<sign,interpretANT,interpretER> says it
all; potentially, everyone could interpret any sign in
any way they please. So
identity in that universe has to be conditioned on who
is doing the
identification.
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
Following
the law of identity an object is identical with
itself if it exists at a
particular place in space and a particular point
of time. This is like
duplicating an object. So therefore two seemingly
identical objects are only
identical with each other, if we disregard space
an time parameters. This is
called abstarction, disaambiguation,
decontextualization, etc.
But if you
accept that an object has two facets, namely form
and content, or if you accept
that no claim on identity may be made without
including the aspect of the
observer, then it must be clear, that either you
have a new situation when the
object is seen from a different aspect by the same
observer, or you have
another observer. Both of those aspects mean that
you have a relation between
the observer and the object observed, in other
word the observer relates the
object to him/herself.
Since
objects have names (even concepts do) which are
forms, we are faced with the
problem of defining and harmonizing the associated
content (usually properties)
in each observer to achive mutual understanding.
I admit
that space and time parameters may be dropped for
some purpose, but as Physics
teaches us, the aspect of the observer cannot.
Otherwise you are all talking to
yourselves.
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|