ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications are fu

To: <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>, "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "AzamatAbdoullaev" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:22:14 +0300
Message-id: <C935D59BEEE644E48742B4285EEC923D@personalpc>
DF: "According to the theories, dark matter is tangible and affects normal 
matter through gravity."    (01)

AA: As now, the dark matter is lacking reality or substance, it's hard to 
identify, being percieved by the sense or measured by physical 
instrumentation. So it looks more intangible than tangible. From other side, 
the criteria of reality/existence is having a causal effect upon physical 
things, indirectly. What really exists as effecting on visible matter or 
radiation, but can't be detected directly, is very elusive. Something is 
detectable because it interacts with one of the forces of nature: 
Electromagnetic force (light); Gravitational force; Weak force; Strong 
nuclear force. Hence something is dark, like dark matter or energy, if it 
doesn't interact with the light, invisible, like neutrinos. The existence of 
dark matter is reasoned from its hypothetical interactions with gravity, its 
likely impact/effect on the rotation of galaxies.
The same criteria of reality concerns more human things:
1. How the mental entities, meanings, content, senses, exert a causal 
effect/influence upon the physical things and vice versa;
2. How abstract knowledge changes the physical world and vice versa.
3. How the virtual world/Web of information resources influences the real 
world and vice versa.
Azamat Abdoullaev    (02)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications 
are fuzzy)    (03)


> On Tue, July 26, 2011 16:26, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
>> Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:50 PM, Doug Foxvog wrote: "The concepts of dark
>> matter and dark energy are only useful at a galactic
>>> or wider scale of space & periods of time in the millions or billions of
>>> years.  For 99.9999% of uses of ontologies, they can be ignored".
>
>> It's quite opposite for universal ontology, 99.9999% of uses; for the 
>> dark
>> matter/energy are samples of intangible substances, potentially infinite
>> time and space are samples of infinity and eternity.
>
> According to the theories, dark matter is tangible and affects normal
> matter through gravity.  For many aspects of a universal ontology, e.g.,
> relating to information learned up through the 1970s, dark matter and
> dark energy can also be ignored.
>
> -- doug
>
>> With the rest we agree.
>> Azamat
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 10:50 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most 
>> classifications
>> are fuzzy)
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, July 26, 2011 13:52, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
>>>
>>>>   Re the physical law: the criteria of physical reality or material
>>>> existence is having a causal effect (or a feedback effect) upon
>>>> physical
>>>> things, directly or indirectly. Thus we conclude on the materiality of
>>>> physical forces, radiations, magnetic/electric fields, ect. What really
>>>> exists as effecting on visible matter or radiation, but can't be
>>>> detected directly, is very elusive, like dark matter and dark energy,
>>>> today constituting 95% of the universe, and needing new/modified
>>>> physical/gravitational laws.
>>>
>>> The concepts of dark matter and dark energy are only useful at a
>>> galactic
>>> or wider scale of space & periods of time in the millions or billions of
>>> years.  For 99.9999% of uses of ontologies, they can be ignored.
>>>
>>> Note that although the theory of relativity necessitated the
>>> modification
>>> of Newton's laws of motion and the statement of new laws, Newton's laws
>>> remain perfectly valid in the vast majority of cases dealing with
>>> movement
>>> of physical objects on the Earth.
>>>
>>> Yes, relativistic physical laws do not predict observations at super-
>>> galactic scales.  Extending gravitational fields on such scales using
>>> the
>>> same laws and assuming that supernovae distant in time and space operate
>>> identically with nearby comparatively recent ones is inconsistent with
>>> recent observations.  Earlier, problems with the Big Bang model
>>> necessitated a fix in order to allow galaxies to form, so an
>>> "inflationary"
>>> period was hypothesized in which space expanded at faster than light
>>> speeds.
>>>
>>> It is quite possible that new theories will arise that will account for
>>> galactic formation, galactic rotation, and the observed distribution of
>>> red shifts with apparent brightness of objects that does not need dark
>>> energy, dark matter, and inflation as currently hypothesized.
>>>
>>> Different ontologies can model the different theories, but for most
>>> practical purposes, such ontologies will not be needed.
>>>
>>>>   ...
>>>
>>>>   Azamat
>>>
>>>
>>> =============================================================
>>> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>>>
>>> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
>>> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
>>>    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
>>> =============================================================
>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> =============================================================
> doug foxvog    doug@xxxxxxxxxx   http://ProgressiveAustin.org
>
> "I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
> initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
>    - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
> =============================================================
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
>     (04)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>