Pat, Ravi, and Robert, (01)
PH
> In traditional logical syntax these ways of talking are mutually
> incommensurable... They are eliminated in ISO Common Logic (and,
> by the way, in RDF) so now we can all stop arguing about the true
> nature of such things as flows in pipes, glaciers and ripening
> bananas... (02)
I agree. (03)
RS
> If we describe an object in 4D (time being integral - especially
> where processes impact the object during time of consideration)
> does that take care of dynamic aspects and how would then 4D
> ontologies be constructed? Just like the implicit 3D or not? (04)
As Pat said and I agreed, these are different ways of talking.
If you use a typeless logic, such as CL, these ways of talking
can be mapped to and from one another. The choice of which one
to adopt is a matter of convenience in computation, database
design, or ease of mapping to and from ordinary language. (05)
But there are also semantic issues. In _Features and Fluents_,
Eric Sandewall listed options that require different axioms for
distinct theories. If you multiply the options, you get a total
of 2,304 different theories about processes. For a summary, see
http://www.jfsowa.com/ontology/process.htm (06)
When you introduce causality and its interactions with time, you get
even more semantic issues. See http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/causal.htm (07)
RR
> These entities--from glaciers to the coffee mug--however, exhibit
> a stability (structural, compositional, material, persistence, etc.)
> that, in part, presumably is what makes them easily classifiable as
> objects. (08)
All those criteria have fuzzy borders. A waterfall is constantly
changing its material, but so are living things. Some living things
-- octopus or amoeba -- change structure quite rapidly. And there
are things like bacterial colonies and slime molds on the border
between single-celled and multi-celled organisms. (09)
Whitehead stated a useful criterion: an object is sufficiently
stable to be recognized at repeated encounters. Waterfalls have
that property. The Great Red Spot in the atmosphere of Jupiter
is a storm that has been recognized for over 300 years. (010)
John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|