Doug,
I wish the things could be so simple as you try to present them. But let's
leave aside Dark Energy/Matter for theoretical physicists, which have
already included the elusive subjects as mainstream theories along with
classical and quantum mechanics. Although, it's clear the matter is in need
of heavy ontological works.
What might be actual to discuss within the thread on "intangibles", the new
meanings of "thing" as a mixed entity and "reality" as an global information
space, all in the the context of Future Internet/Internet of Things.
To remind, the IoT is supposed to interrelate Anything/Anyone at
Anytime/Anyplace via Any Network and Any Service, implying Computing,
Convergance, Communication,, Connectivity, Content and Collections (a sort
of matrix 6A x 6C).
The most provocative/interestng definitions i met are as follows: (01)
"...A "thing" could be defined as a real/physical or digital/virtual entity
that exists and move in space and time and is capable of being identified. "
"The Semantic Reality is to integrate the physical world (the real world
activities) and the virtual world of Internet and Web into a global,
self-organizing information space through the emerging sensor and actuator
technologies." (02)
Again, "How the virtual/digital world/Web of information resources
influences the real/physical world and vice versa". Namely, what is the
ontological nature of a mixed reality, cyber-physical reality, augmented
virtual reality, if the semantic reality and semantic web is all about
uniting the real and the virtual worlds, etc. (03)
Now, what kind of universal, global ontology is requested for the Semantic
World applications: Internet of People, Things, Media, and Services,
Semantic Web, or Web X.0, etc. (04)
Azamat Abdoullaev (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 7:31 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why most classifications
are fuzzy) (06)
> On Wed, July 27, 2011 9:22, AzamatAbdoullaev said:
>> DF: "According to the theories, dark matter is tangible and affects
>> normal
>> matter through gravity."
>
>> 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.
>
> At a distance anything that does not emit light or alter light passing
> through it is dark. Dark matter consist of small black holes or billiard
> ball sized lumps of carbon scattered at the appropriate densities and
> places (afaik).
>
>> So it looks more intangible than tangible.
>
> I'm not sure if it would be less tangible than a billiard ball. It is
> not luminous; and it does not significantly absorb light passing through
> a volume with dark matter in it.
>
>> 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.
>
> Why hypothesize that it can't be directly detected?
>
>> 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.
>
> ?"likely impact/effect"? The observed apparent rotation of galaxies does
> not correspond to our understanding of the mass distribution of galaxies.
> That's why dark matter was hypothesized.
>
>> 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;
>
> The causal influence on physical things is by the party considering the
> mental entities. The causal effect by physical things is by mental
> (or computer) processing of physical inputs.
>
>> 2. How abstract knowledge changes the physical world and vice versa.
>
> Similarly, abstract knowledge is used by people to decide how to change
> the physical world.
>
>> 3. How the virtual world/Web of information resources influences the real
>> world and vice versa.
>
> Through the mediation of people and actions of computers which process the
> data and act on the basis of such inputs.
>
> -- doug f.
>
>> Azamat Abdoullaev
>
>
>> ----- 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)
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
>
> =============================================================
> 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
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (08)
|