Dear Matthew,
Here is a relevant quote from Ed:
Ed
> It is my personal philosophy that “objective reality” is
unknowable
> and therefore cannot be modeled. It is possible to model theories of
> reality, but we have to accept that they are theories. What most of us
> model is “commonly perceived reality”, and the only question
is which
> stakeholders are involved in determining what is “common
perception”.
It's that last part - which stakeholders ... determine ..
common perception, that reminds us we are looking at different
worlds.
You see only 3.5 dimensions (x, y, z, and t<Now) out of Greene's
11, and I see 3.5 dimensions of 11, but I am necessarily looking from a
different 11D position, in a different 11D direction, at different 11D sceneries,
with different 11D constituents.
There are alive and dead cats in boxes, quanta with independent
wills, electrons locked in synchrony at vast distances, black holes that
swallow light, and so many other oddities that, in effect, we have no reason to
think that we are seeing the same worlds even if we *could* directly observe
reality instead of observing just those daily abstractions of reality that we *commonly*
recognize.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Matthew
West
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 8:55 AM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software
Engineering Ontologies?
Dear Rich,
Multiverses is just a Possible Worlds set up from a physics
perspective. It does not suggest that we are in different universes, just that
all possible universes are a physical reality somewhere (in one universe
Schodeinger’s cat is dead, in another alive – but there is not one
universe where both are true when the box is opened). It does not mean that we
are experiencing different universes, just that they exist (which I’m
fine with as a possibility, but I don’t see how that can be proved, since
the alternatives – so far at least – are inaccessible, another
reason why we don’t inhabit different ones.
Regards
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
+44 750 338 5279
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Cooper
Sent: 04 July 2015 14:52
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software
Engineering Ontologies?
Dear Matthew,
Here is a video on the Multiverse - multiple simultaneous
universes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUW7patpm9s
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
Dear Matthew,
You wrote: Dear Rich,
So to summarise, you
have no proof that we inhabit different worlds.
Yes, I have no proof we inhabit different worlds, and I don't
necessarily believe we do. But I also have no evidence that we inhabit
the same world.
What I do believe is that we sense different worlds because of
our diversity of sensing and interpretation. I can only interpret things
that I have some past experience with. Any my past experience is very
different from even my neighbor's experience, or your experience, or JFS's
experience. The world is so frigging big, and so frigging complex, that
we will probably never focus so tightly each to see the others' sense of the
world.
That is, whether I sense the same world as you sense (I think I
most probably do) doesn't really matter. The WAYs in which we sense the
world are not exact, not even approximately equivalent, so that it is less important
than my understanding your views and beliefs about the world, or than your
understanding my views and beliefs, because we have so much trouble aligning
along those axes.
Brian Greene has a very thought provoking video on the 11
dimensions he believes comprise the universe. Here is his video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtdE662eY_M
Do you think we sense quarks? I don't. Our ability
to interact with the universe is so extremely limited, and the universe is so
vast, that we will likely never be looking at the same part of it.
So why assume we do see the same world? That assumption
seems suspect to me.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
Dear Rich,
So to summarise, you have no proof that we inhabit different
worlds.
Regards
Matthew West
http://www.matthew-west.org.uk
+44 750 338 5279
Dear Matthew,
You wrote:
In my
view it is a really big thing to say that we do not together inhabit some
common world. We might experience it in different ways, but to say that what we
experience is different is quite another thing.
Regards
Matthew
West
Information
Junction
I am an avid psych lit reader, but not a psychologist.
>From my readings, I think most of what we experience is a reactivation of
our memories, comprising a jambalaya of objects that are in some way linked
either to the present stimuli, or to other memories of other linked
stimuli.
I think of it as a DAG (directed acyclic graph) of AND and OR
nodes with a "~" prefix to calculate the complementary NOT. In total,
an AND/OR graph, with symbols and functions with parameter lists, all
represented in the DAG.
The linkage, according to Chomsky, is a stored pattern with
empty slots, or variables, that we fill in with bits and pieces of the current
situation. We see this newly filled-in pattern, in many ways like the
matching pattern along with links, within links, ..
So do we inhabit a commonly shared world?
We can never know that. We can share our knowledge and
observations with other agreeable agents, and they with us, and we can even run
confirmatory experiments to confirm or deny our own view of a theory, theirs or
ours. But we can't really know if it is the SAME experience we have, or
an experience of the SAME situation, because we are different observers, each
with our own vast library of biases.
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper,
Rich Cooper,
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
Dear Kingsley,
On 6/30/15 9:21 PM, Chris Partridge wrote:
Not sure this is going to get us far, but I
still cannot make much sense of "But the point is that
none of it is about objective reality or objective truth. It is about the
world as seen by the people and software that have to communicate." Don't we see/sense the same world?
No we don't.
[MW>] That’s a big statement. Would
you care to back it up with some evidence, rather than just assume it is a self
evident truth?
That's Ed's fundamental point. The very
same point made by John Sowa, Patrick Hayes and others -- in a variety of
posts over the years.
[MW>] I’m not sure I’ve
heard them say that either. Care to give specific quotes?
In my view it is a really big thing to
say that we do not together inhabit some common world. We might experience it
in different ways, but to say that what we experience is different is quite
another thing.
Regards
Matthew
West
Information Junction
Mobile: +44 750 3385279
Skype: dr.matthew.west
matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/
https://www.matthew-west.org.uk/
This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered
in England and Wales No. 6632177.
Registered office: 8 Ennismore Close, Letchworth Garden City,
Hertfordshire, SG6 2SU.
We are individuals for a reason :)
Think of this as the cognition paradox .
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this