[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Estimating number of all known fac

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 17:22:29 -0400
Message-id: <59cb8bdcd9a9ea1d672ebb9340508666.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Thu, May 24, 2012 14:27, matthew lange wrote:
> ...
> Here again are some examples of facts, I would be delighted if someone
> would attempt to bound factual knowledge so that they could be
> quantified--or otherwise provide *succinct *reasons about why my
> examples are not facts.
> Fact examples:
>    1. The earth revolves around the sun.    (01)

Each individual atom in/on/of the earth revolves around each individual
atomic nucleus of the sun.
Each conjoined set of atoms in/on/of the earth revolves around each
individual atomic nucleus of the sun.
[How many facts are we up to now if each of the above is expanded?]    (02)

>    2. The Greek letter Pi represents the irrational number that is the
>    ratio between a circle's circumference and diameter.    (03)

... to a certain set of people.  And to any non-empty subset of that set.    (04)

>    3. A calorie is the amount of energy it takes to raise the  temperature
>    of 1cc of water 1 deg. C at sea level.    (05)

This seems like a definition of a term, not a fact (and a non-standard
definition at that, not mentioning initial temperature or pressure).  If it
were a fact, then it would encompass a fact for each cc of water.    (06)

>    4. Chemical X contains Y calories of available energy. (of course
>    substituting where appropriate)    (07)

Do you mean a specific mass of Chemical X ?  There are certainly a large
number of ways to pick an amount of Chemical X of that mass.    (08)

> Are these not facts? Are they not countable?    (09)

If the universe has a finite amount of Chemical X, then 4) encompasses
a finite number of facts.  We've left a google in the dust a long
time ago.    (010)

They are countable in that they are not infinite.    (011)

> Again, aside from bending the space-time continuum, or  dismissing laws of
> nature like thermodynamics...I fail to see the need for relativism
> here...or, what am I missing? If you agree that these are facts, then
> let's get pragmatic and enumerate the properties/boundaries
> around the nature of a fact.    (012)

This is a very different issue than counting the near infinitude of facts in
a quantized finite universe.    (013)

-- doug f    (014)

> ...
> Best,
> ~mc
>    (015)

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    (016)

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