Sorry, John, I think that the best theories can provide the best descriptions
of reality. Theories: mathematical, scientific, ontological, etc. (01)
I'm not ready to throw up my hands and say that anything goes. The best things
go. The best theories. Until better theories come along. I'm not a relativist
nor a subjectivist nor a nihilist. (02)
I accept a coerced teleological argument (your "reason for every distinction")
because I think that reality adapts to reality. (03)
I'm reminded of the interview with Urs Schreiber in this month's Reasoner:
This gets at the proverbial "unreasonable effectiveness
of mathematics in the natural sciences" (quoting from it below): (04)
"But there is an even deeper "unreasonable effectiveness" at work here: for
among all possible theories of physics that one can write down (technically:
among all local Lagrangians on jet spaces), those that govern our world-such as
Einstein's gravity, the standard model of particle physics based on Yang-Mills
theory, as well as various auxiliary Chern-Simons-type theories that these are
closely related to-are very special. There seems to be a "theory of theories"
which singles them out as the theories observed in nature."
"So what particle phyicists value as the most precious general guiding
principle of the fundamental structure of the physical world is at the same
time a hallmark of higher category theory." (05)
I.e., homotopy type theory. (06)
So I think logical ontology is on the right track. (07)
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 10:29 AM
>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
>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.
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
>Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
>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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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 (010)