Dear John,
We wrote:
RC
>> how would we know if we
are truly looking at the **same world**, or
>> at the **same system**,
the **same problem**, the **same project**,
>> whatever you like to
call your plans, if you use them?
>> How could you tell?
JFS
> Since we are all on the
same planet, the answer to the first question
> is obvious: there is
no other option. If you don't believe that, you
> belong in a loony bin.
>
> RC: So I will put your name
in the **unconvinced** column on this issue.
JFS: No!!! Put my name in
the column that says "Convinced that the question, as stated, is based on
a confusing misuse of the English language."
For the other questions, put my
name in the column that says "To be answered by asking the speaker 'What
do you mean?'"
John
What do you mean, John? Can you rephrase the
question so that you are happy with it please?
The question is about the nondeterministic properties of
the 11D string theory model promulgated by Brian Greene in the video I
posted. There are quarks, and there are probabilistic events in the
quantum world. Heisenberg was uncertain, and managed to convince the rest
of the scientific world about his uncertainty principle. We can only
sense an object by taking energy away from it, and all those other oddities of
present physics dogma. So we can't possibly all be looking at the same
universe given those sources of uncertainty. Right? Or do have a
response on that?
So I think a multiverse view, where each conscious individual
represents one single universe out of all those available in an uncertain situation,
with a lot of uncertain branches, makes a lot of modeling sense as mapping each
and every oddity in a forest of links.
But if you have a different description that you like the
English of, please suggest it and then answer the original question.
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
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2015 2:24 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering
Ontologies?
On 7/4/2015 7:10 PM, Thomas Johnston wrote:
> But I've never found Wittgenstein, earlier or later,
of direct
> relevance to my thought.
What I found most relevant about the later Wittgenstein
is his ability to ask probing questions that show how pointless some so-called
philosophical questions really are.
Neither Peirce nor Wittgenstein would tolerate such
questions.
Peirce had no sympathy for Descartes' "Cogito ergo
sum." Nobody but a lunatic or somebody "in the grip of a
philosophical theory"
could doubt that he existed.
Pretending to search for certainty by starting with a
universal doubt leads to the worst kind of philosophical nonsense.
Descartes was a brilliant mathematician, but his attempt to make philosophy as
precise as mathematics misled several centuries of philosophers.
That "philosophical disease", as Wittgenstein
called it, is at the heart of the program by Frege, Russell, and Carnap to
replace natural languages with a purified language of logic.
Peirce, Whitehead, and Wittgenstein were pioneers in
logic, and they appreciated its value. But Peirce recognized that Ernst
Mach's positivism was a mistake. Whitehead and Wittgenstein recognized
that the logical positivism of the Vienna circle was a "grave error",
as Wittgenstein called it.
And note how Whitehead introduced Russell at
Harvard: "This is my good friend Bertrand Russell. Bertie
thinks that I am muddleheaded.
But I think that he is simpleminded."
Note my answer to Rich (copy below). Rich asked the
question whether philosophy is useful. But he has been asking the worst
kind of philosophical questions. My response to him is a bit of
"therapy"
along the lines that Ludwig W. advocated.
John
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in
Software Engineering Ontologies?
Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2015 16:33:57 -0400
From: John F Sowa
On 7/5/2015 11:21 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
>> how would we know if we are truly looking at the
**same world**, or
>> at the **same system**, the **same problem**,
the **same project**,
>> whatever you like to call your plans, if you use
them?
>> How could you tell?
JFS
> Since we are all on the same planet, the answer to
the first question
> is obvious: there is no other option. If
you don't believe that, you
> belong in a loony bin.
>
> RC: So I will put your name in the **unconvinced**
column on this issue.
No!!! Put my name in the column that says
"Convinced that the question, as stated, is based on a confusing misuse of
the English language."
For the other questions, put my name in the column that
says "To be answered by asking the speaker 'What do you mean?'"
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