A lot of questions! I will try to answer all of them. But I want to address two recurring themes first.
The purpose of the "independent of man" context is to demonstrate "primacy of existence".
That is, there are real things, with real characteristics, described by real propositions, which have
nothing to do with man, and were not created by man. The opposing view, "primacy of consciousness"
says that reality is created by man's mind. You might think that man's inventions support that, but
man is merely manipulating reality, not creating it.
In this particular context, I am making the distinction because part of man's mental context,
the RDF definition of Class, was "inserted" into the physical context, causing a lot of confusion.
Which leads me to your related question re: "conceptual works". Of course they are part of the
real world where men interact in social groups, and you have every right to call that the "physical
context". But that is not the same "physical context" that this email thread started in. We started
with some problems concerning RDF Class -- a very limited scope.
Define the context that you want.
I will try to answer the rest of your questions very briefly >> see below.
Feel free to email me off list if you want more discussion.
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:58:34 -0400
From: doug@xxxxxxxxxx
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] metaphysical context
On 4/10/2014 3:01 AM, Richard H.
McCullough wrote:
I'm using "physical context" to denote all the
propositions which describe the
external world, independent of man.
OK. The "physical context" does not include conceptual works
(including laws & specifications),
organizations, emotions, money (as opposed to currency),
agreements, rights, ownership,
crime, geopolitical entities, language, hierarchies, etc. Let me
call this type of thing "conceptual things".
The propositions include the relations
which define the entity-characteristc-proposition hierarchy
But hierarchies aren't part of the physical context!
>> yes, they are -- described by propositions such as entity isa existent; characteristic isa existent; ...
The first two sentences in this explanation logically conflict.
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.
And propositions that are not about the "real world" are neither
"physical context propositions
nor "real things".
>> that's right. they might be part of an "imaginary context".
"entity", "characteristic" and "proposition" are
three different
kinds of real things.
Are classes of "real things" taken to also be "real things" because
they denote information
about the "real world"?
>>yes, the members of the classes are "real things". The classes and propositions are
>> identified by man by observation of the real world.
If "entity" is a kind of real thing, that means that non-real
entities are banned from this
system.
>> you can define your own imaginary context
That means that either
* the system can refer to things that aren't entities
If "characteristic" = "property" and "characteristic" is a kind of
"real thing", what does tha
* the system can not refer to non-real entities such as conceptual
works, money, etc.t
mean abut properties of conceptual things?
* The system does not accept properties of conceptual things.
>> conceptual things are real
* The system accepts properties of conceptual things as being real,
but they must have null extent.
* Properties of conceptual things are real things, but propositions
denoting properties of conceptual
things are not real things.
* Pro
positions denoting properties of conceptual things are real
things even though
the arguments of the propositions are not real things.
>> define your context
Objects in the ordinary sense of the word are
entities.
Do you mean "physical object" by "objects in the ordinary sense of
the word"?
>> yes
The more acceptable synonym of "real thing" is
"existent".
Are things outside the "physical context" considered to be "real
things"/"existents"?
For example, is a contract (the conceptual thing, not the sheet of
paper on which it is written)
an "existent"/"real thing"?
>> yes
I take mental/epistemology context t
o
mean looking inside your
mind. In that context, you
have mental objects which are your view of entity,
characteristic, proposition.
And what about shared mental objects such as the "conceptual
objects" i mentioned above?
They are not restricted to a single mind.
>> define your context, you apparently want to discuss "men" instead of "man"
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.
As long as a system can refer to both physical and mental things and
specify relationships
among them, why should this be such a great issue? What is the
utility of distinguishing
physical context propositions from ones concerning conceptual
objects?
>>their properties are different
Many ontologies and computer systems deal with conceptual things -
employees,
bank accounts, purchases, specifications, laws, contracts, etc. Why
separate
information about conceptual things
from those about physical
objects?
>> their properties are different
-- doug foxvog
Dick McCullough
Context Knowledge Systems
mKE and the mKR language
mKR/mKE
tutorial
> Subject: Re: metaphysical context
> From:
phayes@xxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 23:24:53 -0500
> CC:
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
kr-language@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rslatimer@tds.
net
> 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 conte
xt 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.
>
> Pat
>
>
> > 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![]()
(850)434 8903
home
> 40 South Alcaniz St.
(850)202 4416![]()
(850)202 4416![]()
(850)202 4416![]()
(850)202 4416
office
> Pensacola
(850)202
4440![]()
(850)202 4440![]()
(850)202 4440
fax
> FL 32502
(850)291
0667![]()
(850)291 0667![]()
(850)291 0667
mobile (preferred)
>
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
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
_________________________________________________________________
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