Hi Don, (01)
Though a mere mortal, you asked some godlike questions, as I understand it
from the 4D adherents. (02)
4D is an essentially static specification (with variables and constants as
columns named or specified in closure for the life of the system). (03)
So all knowledge of the system, past present and future, is bound into one
ginormous structure that some might call a semantic network. (04)
In practice, organized as a system practicing a linear control systems
theory, 3D is much easier to build, and we are all familiar with the queued
event scheduler algorithms that figure out what function to perform next,
when, or bound to what objects and classes. (05)
3D+1 views seem to relate to that linear control system of the paragraph
above. (06)
4D views seem to relate the full specification of that system over the full
life cycle of its operation from <System.LifeStarts> to <System.LifeEnds>. (07)
The 4D view therefore, its adherents claim, models the effects of the
specification details more completely and consistently than the 3D+1 does,
simply because 3D+1 implies the kind of as yet unevaluated queued event
handlers and interpreters that operate in real time, like we are used to
doing our task list items as we lead our lives. (08)
The 4D view at the end of life is complete in the sense that it is
prespecified; that means it runs open loop, unlike the 3D+1 system which
runs closed loop against sensors and effectors that perform system task on
the system task list. (09)
The 4D view at the beginning of life must be specified consistently, I
gather. If so, that must limit it to a single consistent system, not
independent components of subsystems. Corrections needed here anyone? (010)
I think that is the goal of the 4D viewers, from what I gather of the
conversation. (011)
JMHO,
-Rich (012)
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2 (013)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Conklin, Don
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:02 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Presentism etc (014)
As a mere mortal who is interested in this discussion, permit me to playback
what I think I've heard and see if I have it right. The example I will use
is me. (015)
3D- describes all my physical attributes (dimensions, mass, appearance on
various wavelengths, etc.) By definition this is at a point (slice) of time. (016)
3D+1-add to the 3D model timestamps each attribute(s) of interest, for a
point (slice) in time. This requires a query to address time or else all
timestamps and attributes without timestamps are returned. (017)
4D- I am the eddy in the wave. Within my eddy I am a constant, right until
the wave wipes me out, when I revert to a fluent (?). The wave, being part
of the ocean, eventually suffers the same fate. Time is an integral part of
my being and the status of all attributes are correct for whatever time is
of interest. (018)
Is this correct? (019)
Don (020)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2011 1:30 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [ontolog-forum] Fw: Presentism etc (021)
On 2/7/2011 3:09 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> We can have our 4D cake, and eat it also in 3D+1 practice, with a few
> transformation calculations thrown in for the philosophers. (022)
Pat H., Matthew W., and Chris P. have been promoting a 4D
representation for its computational regularity and simplicity,
not for its philosophical niceties. (023)
Alfred North Whitehead was a mathematician, who remarked that the
first time he ever entered a classroom on philosophy was when he
retired in the UK and joined the philosophy department at Harvard. (024)
I like a 4D representation for the same reasons as the above,
*and* because it is compatible with Whitehead's ontology --
which is one of the few that is capable of bridging the gap
between science (at the level of relativity and quantum mechanics)
and ordinary human thought and language. (025)
But to do the mapping to ordinary language, it's important
to be flexible, because people frequently move from one
way of talking to another, depending on the context and
point of view. That is why I like to have a general 4D
ontology as a foundation -- it has the simplest mappings
to and from a wider variety of other representations. (026)
John (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (029)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (030)
|