Hans, (01)
I certainly would not exclude films or other activities from physical
reality. The writing, production, acting, recording to DVD, and viewing of
a film by an audience are all physical events comprising reality. Without
them film even as an intellectual concept does not exist. Only the
interpretation and recollection of a film by an individual is imaginary.
And those notions of a particular film will likely vary across an audience
and over time. Admittedly, strictly social conventions like ownership and
financial transactions only become part of physical reality to the extent
that the behavior exhibited by individuals serves to describe or execute
these stipulations. The rest is social imagination -- although usually a
widely shared imagination. I would also claim that individuals only come to
hold shared concepts through the action of physical reality. Through
conversation, exploration, and demonstration. (02)
I do agree that how we (physically) record and communicate the grist of
shared imaginations is important to reducing the semantic mismatch among
individuals concerned with germane activities practiced in common. (03)
Mike (04)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Hans Polzer
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 9:03 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering
Ontologies? (05)
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)? (06)
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. (07)
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). (08)
Hans (09)
-----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? (010)
I might take John's point a bit farther, where he says: (011)
3. None of those facts mean that we're inhabiting a different
planet. They just mean that we're looking at different
aspects. (012)
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. (013)
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. (014)
Mike (015)
-----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? (016)
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? (017)
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. (018)
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: (019)
1. We all inhabit planet earth. That is the basic meaning of
the word 'world'. All others are metaphors or other extensions. (020)
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. (021)
3. None of those facts mean that we're inhabiting a different
planet. They just mean that we're looking at different
aspects. (022)
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. (023)
John (024)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (025)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (026)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (027)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (028)
|