[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal Basic Semantic Structures

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "doug foxvog" <doug@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 13:50:12 -0400
Message-id: <b915093337c26398b208d64b135b9428.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, September 26, 2012 11:44, Andries van Renssen wrote:
>  John F Sowa on 26 september 2012 at 15:53 wrote:
>> On 9/26/2012 8:53 AM, Andries van Renssen wrote:
>> ...
>> > But the piece of land that is defined by that boundary is
>> > nevertheless a physical object, and it has a mass, although
>> > its value is unknown and not of interest.    (01)

>> Space is physical, but it doesn't have a mass.  An area is
>> a two-dimensional region.  The political subdivisions only
>> specify coordinates that determine the area at the surface,
>> and they are silent about depth or height.    (02)

> [AvR] I hesitate about the mass of a physical space, and whether the gas
> in a space is part of the space or just occupies the space.    (03)

Occupies.    (04)

> But if the space is
> not empty, the mass may be of interest such as in the interior of a
> balloon and a submarine.    (05)

Sure.    (06)

> ...
> I question whether a physical area is by definition two dimensional.    (07)

I'm not sure what you mean by "physical area".    (08)

> Mathematical area's are two dimensional. But two dimensional area's in
> physical reality seem to be abstractions. They are at least curved in the
> third dimension.    (09)

Fine.  Math allows this.  Iit also defines planar 2D areas.    (010)

> But more important: if you walk on them, they compress
> under pressure and they provide an upward force on you.    (011)

The areas don't compress.  The physical surface does.    (012)

> If you buy them    (013)

You don't buy an area (or volume).  You buy physical land or part of
a physical structure or rights to take certain actions within some
volume (spatial or physical).    (014)

> then you also possess a mass with volume below and a space above it,    (015)

If you buy a physical object, then you own (a social property) the mass
that comprises that object along with associated rights as defined by
society.    (016)

> although constrained nowadays by government rules.    (017)

and before that by societal rules.    (018)

> Although they are typically
> defined in two dimensions only, their third dimension is recognized and
> constrained by government rules (as you describe below).    (019)

It appears that you are referring to plots of land here, not "two
dimensional area's in physical reality".    (020)

> This is related to the concept of 'surface'. A surface can have a
> roughness,
> a color, a hardness, a temperature, a strength, etc. I think that it can't
> have such properties when it would be only two dimensional.    (021)

One could certainly define such, e.g., the lat/long of its centroid.    (022)

> We are probably
> influenced by the abstract mathematical concept of dimensions.
> In practical physics, every physical point has a size that is non zero,
> although nearly infinitesimal.    (023)

What do you mean by "physical point"?    (024)

>> By fiat, the governments of countries lay claim to the mineral
>> rights beneath their areas.  In principle, they could claim rights
>> down to the center of the earth.  But in practice, the technology
>> can only mine a few km. beneath the surface.    (025)

>> When air travel became possible, national governments laid claim
>> to the air space above them, but smaller governments did not.
>> But nobody laid claim to the regions above the atmosphere.
>> Those are more distinctions by fiat.    (026)

>> In summary, I recommend that any ontology for any subdivision
>> of the earth should specify the surface area S and the intended
>> role R for that area.    (027)

> [AvR] In some cases (e.g. mines, reservoirs) the subdivision of the earth
> requires an explicit third dimension.    (028)

Agreed.    (029)

> And some, such as lakes and mountains, don't need a role.    (030)

Huh?  Wouldn't a lake/mountain have the roles of being part of some
enitity's territory and some (other) entity's property?    (031)

>> Then anything else that may be associated with the pair (S,R),
>> such as the land, air, water, people, buildings, governments,
>> should be specified as the X associated with the area S as
>> considered in the role R.    (032)

>> John    (033)

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    (034)

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