|FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
|Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:50:04 +0000 (GMT)
My appologies to all of you,
FK This is going to be my last post in this long session. I am sorry for not being clear enough. But this is the kind of exchange that best illustrate my points (not covered here).
Your summary was a little off from what I was trying to say, but no problem
RC Let’s summarize what you’ve told me in my words. Space (with three dimensions) and Time (with one) are four of the properties in my universe.
To me space and time are two objects, more specifically two interrelated concepts that are one of the first steps of our abstraction (an action and a relation). They are not complete without the concept of movement (change) path and/or work. They are not properties, they are a man made concept and they are a product, in other words you cannot separate them physically.
Even phyisicans cannot give you another defintion of time than the thing we measure with the tick of a clock. This means that our language is recursively defined, just as a formal language, and space-tiome are one of the first, top end catgories.They are the most generic in the line of specific-generic continuum, but also they are the most specific when translated to numbers when it comes to identifying another object existing in spacetime. One of the reason being that numbers are unique identifiers, becasue they are of dual character too as numbers are forms (to recognize as unique) and such forms mean both quality and quantity especiallyin connection with an object, bit themselves as well..
But my universe has one heck of a lot of other properties as well. Such as the cost of a crack in an otherwise priceless vase makes its price MUCH less.
FK No problem with that
RC Using the old –tree-falling-in-the-woods-makes-a-noise-but-not-a-sound-or-vice-versa- rationale, Peirce said that we need to model a subjective observer distinctly from the actor and its associated objects. At least that’s what I take away from the triadity so far expressed.
So lets do the generalization and say that ANY property has a domain of values which can be inspected by SOME interpreter, who consequently makes a decision based on the property-value combination or _expression_ over thereof.
Why pick out time and space as SPECIAL properties, compared to temperature, financial liquidity, or chemical bonds? Yes they have some syntactic role to play in language conjugations and number matching, but that should be treated distinctly from the SEMANTICS of specific choices at this point in our knowledge base, IMHO.
A word does not make sense.Neither does a sign for that matter. If associated with an object it may. Most of the categories in ontologies are nominal phrases (objects and properties) which are neat, if you have to sort them in space. The relations used are a mixed bag, but mainly spatial or analoguous to spatial. The only sort key you have is alpha or numberic, both a sort on form as opposed to content which may not be accessible directly, at least in the semantic paradigm that i use in linguistics.
A verb is not complete without grammar person, number, tense, and aspect. by trabnsfering verbs into nouns and making them a concept sort of thing does not help much in sorting. Verbs mean actions and states, but if you look at a picture nothing moves there and you cannot identify the change that a verb describes. All you have is epculation as far as the real story is.
You can turn nearly any noun into a verb and use it like a verb. Children do that. They have an understanding of that sort of temporal relation before they can speak grammatically correctly. But we cannot sort verbs, not can we break down the meaning ov verbs in a way similar to that of bodies and mass in space.
Sorry about that Peter, i did not mean to be a nuisance
_________________________________________________________________ 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]
|[Next in Thread>
|Previous by Date:
|Re: [ontolog-forum] triadic sign relations in practice, doug foxvog
|Next by Date:
|Re: [ontolog-forum] Triangles and meanings., John Black
|Previous by Thread:
|Re: [ontolog-forum] triadic sign realtions in practice, FERENC KOVACS
|[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]