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

[Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rich

Yes I agree with Caveats about X, but if enough people, with observational instruments and techniques, or theories and interpretations (I mean SMEs and not voting process alone) confirm same attributes about X in context say this Planet as John describes it, then it tends to become an acceptable model or description of reality as approximately as physicist imply in their communications.

However for complex theories, one waits for confirmation events and often poor statistics, observations, etc., even sometimes decades before theories get confirmed. Then discoverers get Nobel Prize in their old age > 30 years after they proposed the view of reality.

Yet Reality as some of our colleagues including you described is time variant and never static even in physics, let alone where mind and matter try to comprehend a theory.

Again I repeat the notion that Einstein was interested in that world that could be described consistently without too much varying cognitive experiences and could be verified by others.

I see that thread when our ontologists describe Logic, math and reasoning, these are basis for science, but often roots in philosophy.

Nature of reality is very-very widely discussed topic in various languages and cultures.

Regards,

Ravi

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dear Ravi,

 

You sound like a physicist!  Thanks for clarifying the view on the 11 dimensions and effects and observations.  You wrote:

 

RS: Nuclear reactors produce power although neutrons are not visible, radiation therapy destroys tumors, nuclear bomb killed people even though microscopic world is not visible, nor are viruses normally, thus quarks and gluons as building blocks that provide effects of dimensions beyond 3.5 have real effects and are confirmed by the observations of those effects.

 

RS: Sometimes we can manifest sensory products by surrounding the microscopic such as Cerenkov radiation Thermonuclear reactions (dark invisible interior of the Sun producing light), etc.

 

So in summary, it seems that you agree; we don't know if two observers see the same X.  So if you want to build a theory that explains X, it has to conjoin with "for a given observer e, ..." or something equivalent.   

 

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

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ravi Sharma
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2015 1:54 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]

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

 

Rich

 

Nuclear reactors produce power although neutrons are not visible, radiation therapy destroys tumors, nuclear bomb killed people even though microscopic world is not visible, nor are viruses normally, thus quarks and gluons as building blocks that provide effects of dimensions beyond 3.5 have real effects and are confirmed by the observations of those effects. Sometimes we can manifest sensory products by surrounding the microscopic such as Cerenkov radiation Thermonuclear reactions (dark invisible interior of the Sun producing light), etc.

 

Thus the link provided was pedestrian view of the irrational interpretations of superficial realism.

 

I like your statement "The point is we simply don't know if we see the same X when two of us look at an X. "

 

Also X and reality/ instance of X are complicated interpretations based on philosophy but realism of gravity does work i.e. independent of one's point of view all will fall if dropped from a height.

 

Regards,

 

 

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Here is a TED talk by Dan Ariely who explains some of the reasons why we see different worlds:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y0w5EJC9o0

 

 

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: Monday, July 06, 2015 6:34 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontologies?

 

On 7/6/2015 7:35 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:

> Of the 11 dimensions, we see only 3.5.  The rest we deduce based on

> complete lack of physical evidence about what is going on...

 

Yes.  That is the point of Peirce's pragmatism and fallibilism.

All science is fallible.

 

> We don't know that the effects are only submicroscopic...

 

There are certainly more facts that we don't know than the ones we do.  But scientists know that a huge number of facts about submicroscopic phenomena have effects that we observe at the macroscopic level.  In fact, *all* chemical reactions are the result of quantum-level interactions.

 

The empirical observations made by chemists (and the earlier

alchemists) were true as far as they went.  19th century chemists learned a large number of facts about the elements, how they interacted with each other, the atomic weights of the known elements, and even the periodic table of the elements.

 

In that regard, the chemists were *far ahead* of the physicists, many of whom were skeptical about the existence of atoms.  As late as the early 1900s, Ernst Mach refused to admit that atoms existed.

 

During the early 20th c, physicists used the facts discovered by chemists as guidelines for their theories about atoms.

Today, chemists use quantum mechanics to calculate how various molecules will react even before they synthesize them.

 

> Any attempt to whitewash that unknown is just "proof by emphatic

> assertion" that it doesn't matter, not real proof.

 

Fundamental principle:  Any fact on whose truth you are willing to bet your life is one for which your belief is very, very strong.

There are many such facts.  But you have no mathematical proof For any of them.

 

For example, do you drive a car?  Have you ever been a passenger in a car?  Every time you do, you are betting your life on

 

  1. Principles of physics, chemistry, electronics, and the competence

     of the many engineers and mechanics who use those principles to

     design, build, and maintain your car, the cars driven by other

     drivers, and the roads and bridges over which you drive.

 

  2. The competence of the other drivers to control their cars

     and not run into you (or at least your competence and the

     ability of your car and your driving skills to avoid them).

 

  3. The social habits and conventions of other drivers to stay in

     their lanes and not take too many risks in the way they drive

     and how they observe speed limits and conventions.

 

Just take an inventory of the actions in your daily life and the all the assumptions and beliefs on which you bet your life.

 

Have you ever flown in an airplane?  If so, you've bet your life on many facts about our planet, its geography, and how other people behave -- pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, etc.

 

The fact that we're all on the same planet is one that is worth pondering.  But it's irrational to doubt it.

 

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
 

--

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile

_________________________________________________________________
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
 

--

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma)
313 204 1740 Mobile

_________________________________________________________________
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)