Actually, John, you should have quoted Pat Hayes for that opening quote, which
is what I had in my message: (01)
PatH:
>> Actually, there is a very convincing argument that the real universe
>> is discrete rather than continuous, and finite (very, very large,
>> but finite) rather than infinite. See http://motionmountain.net/ ,
>> especially volume 4 et. seq. (02)
My part then: (03)
These Motion Mountain books by Schiller are very nice, beautiful even --
although I'm not sure about his speculative ventures. I have liked David
Deutsch's directions in the past, however, and perhaps these are congruent with
those (I don't know yet). (04)
My part now: (05)
However, I do think these things mean important things to applied ontology and
ontological engineering, at least eventually, if any ontology engineer would
like to trace back to the top what ontology really means. (06)
Thanks,
Leo (07)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 6:20 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] axiom [motionmountain]
>
>On 5/9/2014 3:12 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>> Actually, there is a very convincing argument that the real universe
>> is discrete rather than continuous, and finite (very, very large,
>> but finite) rather than infinite. See http://motionmountain.net/ ,
>> especially volume 4 et. seq.
>
>There is a consensus that the universe has been finite since the
>Big Bang -- and most likely forever after. There also seems to be
>a consensus that all packets of mass and/or energy are quantized.
>
>So we can probably give a definite maybe to the claim that there
>is a finite number of discrete units of whatever.
>
>On the other hand, those whatevers keep keep combining and splitting up
>in all sorts of ways -- including the virtual whatevers that occur even
>in a total vacuum. And there are also claims that our universe is just
>one among an infinity of universes in a multiverse.
>
>But even if the whatevers are discrete, the wave functions for each
>of them are continuous -- and they have no sharp boundaries.
>
>However, in vol. 6 of Motion Mountain (which he says is *speculative*)
>Schiller says that we need new mathematics that does not depend on
>set theory.
>
>I think we could give an indefinite maybe to that claim.
>
>As to the question about what it all means for ontology, I subscribe
>to the philosophy of Mr. Natural (in the Robert Crumb comics):
>
>Question: Mr Natural, Mr Natural, what do it all mean?!?
>
>Answer: It don' mean sheeeit.
>
>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
> (08)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (09)
|