“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world.

[joseph simpson <jjs0sbw@xxxxxxxxx>]

Human beings have a basic information processing capacity limit.  

This limit may be viewed in terms of the "Miller Index" from George Miller presented in "The Magic Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two."

This limit for short term memory creates a situation where humans can reason with three "objects" at a time.

I am always uncomfortable when people are required to consider more than three things at a time.  

Eleven (11) dimensions are much greater than three dimensions.  

These types of contextual situations appear to be beyond the information processing limits of humans.

Why should we be able to relate to eleven (11) dimensions?  Why not one thousand, one hundred and eleven (1111) dimensions?

Have fun,

Joe

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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

 

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

_________________________________________________________________
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)