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