On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 11:32 AM, FERENC KOVACS <f.kovacs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Greetings,
> Hi, I am back, hopefully more disciplined this time.
>
> Re:
> Ian, here's a non-philosophical way to characterize it. Start with an atomic
> sentence of the form R(a, b), with no time involved, and suppose that a and
> b here are ordinary uncontroversial physical objects, say. Intuitively, they
> are 3D things. Now add time, t. Where do we put the time parameter? Several
> answers can be given.By way of a naive, as usual, question, I wonder if the
> above could not be syntactically summarized as
>
> 1. R(a,b)@t
> 2. R@t(a,b)
> 3. R(a@t,b@t)
> Ferenc:
> It depends how you define the concept of relation. If you do not limit it to
> the usual relations usd in formal logic, you have the problems already
> disclosed.
> But if you accept that relations are operations represented by verbs, and
> verbs either identify a state or an action, then a different system (of
> ontology) may be envisaged and devised.
> Time is a concept that is defined in terms of change. It is measured by
> noticing such change of place of an object measuring time (the change).
> Hence time as an infinite concept means no change, and as finite concept it
> is identical with a change, whether the oscillations of an atom, or the
> paths of the illusionary movement of the celestal bodies.
> In GOLORP, an uper ontology that I am in the process of defining an object
> created by man is a concept with triple verbalisation, namely a noun,
> refering to an object, a relation, producing that concept (created by
> abstraction) and the quality or property of that object produced. (01)
Where on the web is information about this GOLORP upper ontology ? (02)
JK
> Take for example
> Change, which is the verb (the realtion), the noun (the object) and it has
> two properties, changing and changed, where channging is the sense of a
> state or process of an object existing, and changed is the new state of the
> object. So an object goes from present to past whenever it is counted, or
> identified as being either in a non completed state of changing, or in a
> completed change of state. Thus the adjective as properties tell you what a
> realtion results in when affecting an object.
> Of course, you may also assume another object to influence this object, and
> ultimately you will aslo find out that relation operation, change and energy
> are different names for the same concept.
> Ferenc
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> (03)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (04)
|