Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

[Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Leo, John

So we leave the actual reality of A. and only express those parts of A that are either described by B. a language (model, communication, image etc.) for understanding what our intent is in learning about B and I presume that Motivation for B. is  C.

Earlier I think Pat implied leptons, gluons, Quarks are reality / related to existence?

In addition I would say leave them till you need to define finer properties e.g. where electron is affected by their presence. For some problems classical mechanics is sufficient. Hence the idea should be that we can build onion like ontologies that encapsulate others with deeper meaning of reality!

Fit for purpose will then also relate to what ontology is sufficient for the purpose C?

Regards,

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:23 PM, John F Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 4/3/2015 3:19 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
> This is a point of disagreement, I think, between logicians and
> ontologists (qua metaphysicians). The former think that expressing
> / representing something is equivalent to it being so, and that
> the "being so" doesn't matter that much. The latter think not.

But there are three things to distinguish, not just two.  Following
is an excerpt from a previous note I wrote on this thread:

> We have to distinguish
>
>    A) The way the world (or universe) actually happens to be
>       -- about which all of us have some shared opinions and
>       scientists have more detailed analyses and theories.
>
>    B) The way people talk in everyday language or in any
>       artificial notation, such as formal logic.
>
>    C) An ontology about the world that happens to be useful
>       for some particular task or group of related tasks.

Category B includes any kind of language or logic.  Category C
includes any theory about the world by ontologists, by scientists,
or by engineers who apply ontology or science to a particular task.

But we have to recognize that the world A is not identical to
the way B we talk about it or the way C that some scientists,
engineers, or ontologists characterize it.

Every mapping to the world A from any language B or any theory C
is an *approximation* whose usefulness depends on the application.
When the application changes, we may need to use a different
approximation -- i.e., different theory of ontology or science.

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

--

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)