John Sowa wrote:
The fundamental principle
is that there is a reason for every
distinction. Those
reasons are fundamental to ontology. Mereology
is useful. But the
hope that it might provide "objective" criteria
for ontology is a fantasy
-- an extremely *misleading* fantasy.
John
Agreed; it is the observer who decides what
distinctions to apply, and that makes the observer’s subjective ontology
the appropriate one to use, not some so-called “objective”
ontology.
Even worse, no two people use exactly the same
ontology, which is one of those things that make interpersonal communications
so very faulty.
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:29 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Universal
Basic Semantic Structures
On 9/26/2012 9:16 AM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> Then you agree with the author of the second
paper?
>
> Robinson, Edward Heath. 2012. Reexamining fiat,
bona fide
> and force dynamic boundaries for geopolitical
entities and
> their placement in DOLCE. Applied Ontology 7
(2012),
> pp. 93-108, DOI 10.3233/AO-2012-0103, IOS Press.
I haven't had a chance to read that paper. But I
objected to the
distinction of fiat vs. natural boundaries as soon as
it was published.
In physics, everything is continuous. Some
gradients are sharper
than others, but nothing in nature has a clearly
defined or definable
0-thickness boundary.
Just consider the human body. The boundary changes
every time somebody
gets a hair cut, clips fingernails, takes a bath, puts
on make-up,
removes contact lenses, or sheds a few skin
cells. For legal purposes,
even clothing is considered within the body's
boundary.
If you admit clothing, you have to ask about the
difference between
a wallet in somebody's pocket vs. a purse carried
outside the boundary
of the clothing. What about a necklace that
might be partly under
the clothing and partly outside? What
about a backpack? If you admit
a backpack, what about a suitcase that somebody is
carrying. If you
admit that, what about a cane? Crutches? A
walker? A wheelchair?
A seeing-eye dog?
The fundamental principle is that there is a reason
for every
distinction. Those reasons are fundamental to
ontology. Mereology
is useful. But the hope that it might provide
"objective" criteria
for ontology is a fantasy -- an extremely *misleading*
fantasy.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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