ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontolog

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 18:52:17 -0700
Message-id: <07d101d0b857$8ddd71f0$a99855d0$@com>

Hans,

 

HP: But even if we focus on just the portion of physical reality that is obviously relevant to some interaction among two or more parties, the participants may be representing significantly different (but overlapping) portions of that physical reality in their brains and in their institutional data bases.

 

Yes, that's yet another reason.  We can't observe all of reality, just a tiny slice.  So the next observer is likely to see a *different* tiny slice, even if the so called objective reality turns out to be singular.  Just very, very big. 

 

I often call this the "lava lamp" model of reality - overlapping/intertwined blobs in constant motion - and a constant source of frustration to those who want a precise and logically processable representation of everything (of concern to them).

 

Nice appellation!  I actually remember those lava lamps.

 

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 Hans Polzer
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 6:03 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontologies?

 

True, Mike - but physical reality isn't static. And much of what we represent in our brains and in our information systems isn't any obvious physical reality - like our financial systems and much of the corporate and government database world. How is the list of Oscar winning films, the films as intellectual property, or even the films themselves, represented in physical reality? What sensors do I use to detect/discover them in my physical environment, or to determine that they are owned by some person or group institution (or even what the concept of ownership is)?

 

Interestingly, more and more of such films don't even take place in or pretend to represent what we are calling the physical reality we all share.

So I guess the fans of such films share a different and imaginary physical reality at some level of comprehensiveness and in some personal modality context.

 

But even if we focus on just the portion of physical reality that is obviously relevant to some interaction among two or more parties, the participants may be representing significantly different (but overlapping) portions of that physical reality in their brains and in their institutional data bases. I often call this the "lava lamp" model of reality - overlapping/intertwined blobs in constant motion - and a constant source of frustration to those who want a precise and logically processable representation of everything (of concern to them).

 

Hans

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Denny

Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 7:48 PM

To: '[ontolog-forum] '

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontologies?

 

I might take John's point a bit farther, where he says:

 

  3. None of those facts mean that we're inhabiting a different

     planet.  They just mean that we're looking at different

     aspects.

 

Even when we are looking at exactly the same aspect of the world, our view of that portion of "objective" reality will be influenced by our individual mental machinery including sensory/perceptual, affective, and cognitive processing.  The end product as a personal mental representation of that reality may differ substantially among individuals but, no matter the differences, none of those representations has an iota of influence on the subject reality beyond the small piece that is the individual's brain and body connected to it.  The reality - the world - exists the same independent of all mental representations of it at a given time.  Operationally, objective reality may conveniently be best known as the description that approximates the subject world part, as agreed on by a persuasive sampling of experts thereof.

 

There should be no muddling of representations (how we imagine the world) and physical reality itself.  The later remains constant while the former swirl around it, hopefully spiraling toward it.

 

Mike

 

-----Original Message-----

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 5:40 PM

To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontologies?

 

On 7/5/2015 8:07 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:

> The question is about the nondeterministic properties of the 11D

> string theory model promulgated by Brian Greene in the video I posted...

> So we can't possibly all be looking at the same universe given those

> sources of uncertainty.  Right?  Or do you have a response on that?

 

As I said in my note to Tom, Descartes's search for absolute certainly led a few of centuries of philosophers to think that absolute certainty is possible or even desirable.

 

The fact that there are quantum-mechanical uncertainties at the submicroscopic level does not mean that everything is uncertain.

The following points are beyond doubt:

 

  1. We all inhabit planet earth.  That is the basic meaning of

     the word 'world'.  All others are metaphors or other extensions.

 

  2. There is vastly more information about our planet than

     anybody has ever observed or imagined.  Scientists or

     anybody who is walking down a road keeps encountering

     surprising new things with just the unaided senses.

 

  3. None of those facts mean that we're inhabiting a different

     planet.  They just mean that we're looking at different

     aspects.

 

  4. The fact that there are countless more details at the

     submicroscopic level waiting to be discovered does not

     mean that all our beliefs are false at a working level.

     It just means that we should expect countless more surprises

     about the details.

 

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

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________

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    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>