Hi Ferenc,
Hi Rich,
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.
Let me help you out there. Space-time identity is important,
because in theri present form of emasurement they are the only devices that can
practically help us identify anything existing in space-time. An idea also
exists in space-time, everyhting existing has its start and finish dates, even
the universe. The isseu is whetehr we can synchronize.
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.
There is no such thing as an abstract concept. A concept is the
product of abstarction and sa such, it has form and content. Its form is its
name, and its content is extension and intension which are likely to be
changing by the passing of time. This should be obvious to you too.
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.
I am afraid it is nto the sdame pottery, it is tattered and tron so
its proeprties have changed and proeprties make up an opject with quality as
the most important one, etc. You must be familar with all that as well.
Time and space are good bracketing properties for some
applications, but not for all kinds of objects when identity is being modeled,
IMHO.
getting rid og time-and space bracketing (and other aspects) makes
you hold a DIVINE aspect. With all the technolgoy to day most of our knowledge
is base on various media that take pictures of relaity which ios far beyond out
life expereince as simple citizens.
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.
<sign,interpretANT,interpretER> may be translated as
object relation and object, the three basic elements of an ontology. What I
have been trying to point out for a long time now that Most of the ontologies
use objects, properties and events and not seeing that events are the odd man out.
Events are best described by verbs, but verbs do not lend themselves to the
same classifications as objects and properties.
On the other hand making them a noun "an abstract" thing
does not lead you to materialize the desire of integrating ontologies, because
it is not possible to fit verbal phrases with the ease allowed by spatial,
static terms (nouns). verbs need to decompose the world in time and a
proper ontology should reflect time, especially the start and end of the series
of actions, etc. even if the slow passing of time and slow changes does not
urge you to do so.
But if tommorrow someone wants you to go metric, most of your
knowledge is outdated overnigth, not to mention other issues that may be of the
same import.
Thank You, ferenc
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of FERENC KOVACS
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010
1:56 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ontolog-forum] triadic
sign relations in practice
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.