I'm using "physical context" to denote all the propositions which describe the
external world, independent of man. The propositions include the relations
which define the entity-characteristc-proposition hierarchy which is very
helpful in organizing our knowledge about the external world. In my definitions,
"characteristic" and "property" are synonyms.
I take physical context propositions to be "real things" because they denote facts
about the real world. "entity", "characteristic" and "proposition" are three different
kinds of real things. Objects in the ordinary sense of the word are entities.
The more acceptable synonym of "real thing" is "existent".
I take mental/epistemology context to mean looking inside your mind. In that context, you
have mental objects which are your view of entity, characteristic, proposition.
It's hard to avoid getting completely confused thinking about physical
vs. mental things. You have to remember that it is "your responsibility"
to identify the physical context propositions by observing what happens in
the real world. Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
> Subject: Re: metaphysical context
> From: phayes@xxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:24:53 -0500
> CC: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; rslatimer@xxxxxxx
> To: rhm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx
> On Apr 9, 2014, at 2:42 PM, Richard H. McCullough <rhmccullough@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > This sounded kind of crazy when it first popped into my mind.
> > But I think I've really got the right words this time.
> > Class of all classes is okay, but it's not part of the physical context
> Absolutely. Classes are not physical entities, of course. I'm not sure what you mean by "context" here, though.
> > which describes the entity-characteristic-proposition world
> > external to us.
> So are propositions objects in the physical world? I find that very doubtful. And what is a 'characteristic' if not a property or class?
> > It's part of the epistemology context which
> > describes how our minds work.
> Hmm. I would prefer to say that classes are Platonic. I don't see quite how a mathematical entity can be said to be psychological.
> > In that context you can say
> > things like
> > Class subClassOf Resource .
> > Resource subClassOf Class .
> > Class is Resource .
> > But Class is a mental entity, not a physical entity.
> > You will notice that Class does not appear anywhere in the
> > CPS hierarchy of
> > http://ContextKnowledgeSystems.org/kb/spo.rdf.html
> > Dick McCullough
> > Context Knowledge Systems
> > mKE and the mKR language
> > mKR/mKE tutorial
> IHMC (850)434 8903(850)434 8903
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416(850)202 4416
> Pensacola (850)202 4440(850)202 4440
> FL 32502 (850)291 0667(850)291 0667
> phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes