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

[Ravi Sharma <drravisharma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Rich

You are guiding us through interesting track.

Quite complex questions, I will reply and obviously can not speak for all physicists. Perhaps some will be based on best practice / common understanding - my words are approximate so please get a sense - hopefully, I am somewhat clear.

From the adjectives and hesitation itself you will see that we are in research if we all physicists do not agree on "seeing" the same universe.

But what about the formula for Newton's laws. These are valid (realistic -again ambiguity) if motion relative to speed of light can be neglected. Earth can be approximated as a gravitational sphere slightly flattened at poles at most, ... you can see I am confining the range of validity of those laws.

Out geodetic satellites and moon probes require more accuracy and multi-pole expansions and with them and measurement of orbit and time accurately we can predict the extent of tides, land a missile on precise spot (<1km) etc.

Mars probe or to outer planets require use of Einstein's special relativity corrections to Newton's laws.

But these fail when we study bending of light around a black hole or grey hole, we need General relativity again from Einstein - about 20+ terms in Kerr-Hawking-Chandrasekhar equations.

So even gravity agreement among physicists is based on range of applicability. It is further complicated as we have been discussing, by our relative approach to understanding the same formula based on background and depth to which we have used these. These days while digital computations make it easier, process of understanding may be obfuscated.

Also please see below against you statements and Qs.

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ravi,

 

Again thanks for the clear explanation of physics from a physicist's view. 

 

If two physicists look at the same planet earth phenomenon, do they see the same thing?  For example, do all physicists see the climate debate with the same attributes?  They can disagree about the coefficients, for example, while agreeing on attributes at least in principle. 

 

They may but they may object to word "seeing" and may replace with compute or agree with "theory" or "model" with applicability limitations described by John Sowa in many posts.

Climate attributes do not define fully the atmospheric determinations which are these days more deterministic than 50 years ago when NCAR was beginning to use mainframe computers for earth grid based buoy and balloon measurements and now we use many additional satellite sensors radiation data. At most 90% accurate many times and non-deterministic (stochastic) aspects take over as prediction from model moves forward. No we all do not agree on a model even to the extent we might agree on Newton's formulae. Let alone effects due to solar, cosmic, ionosphere and seismic variations. Except for identifiable and dated isotopes or particles, we can not determine what aspects of atmosphere are predictable but correlation of temperature (average) with GHG is an observed data.

 

For example, I know that solar radiation fluctuations are reflected by changes in earth temperatures.  There are papers by scientists who say that the changes in earth temperature match in shape the solar radiation histories of the times from, I suppose 0 to Now.  There are others that say sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's very minimal in effect compared to other more potent greenhouse gases.  Therefore CO2 is not the gas to work on.  And geophysical engineering is far more feasible as an amelioration lever if one is needed, according to other scientists. 

 

solar radiation fluctuations there are no agreed records prior to industrial revolution or European science of these on the timescales of climatic changes over 10000 years or earlier but models of solar evolution, solar cycles exist. These are bands / strips of yes - no gaps in our understanding of constituents of attributes, processes, earth-ocean-atmosphere and solar and earth radiations that are used in climatic models yet at a gross level by observations in astrophysics we can predict Sun's lifetime - give or take a billion years!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas  -yes and we also know CFC based and supersonic effects on Ozone hole, also perhaps influenced heavily by solar fluctuations, also meteoritic dusts in past have definitely shown up in paleologic-studies as being causes of extinction of species.

geophysical engineering  - YES California is pioneer in reducing these through such measures - include negligible Coal plants, renewables, hydro solar and fuel cells. But physicists want to solve and provide Fusion for power and leave no residues.

Since all those scientists look at the same planet earth and see different things, at least compared to the panel on climate control (or climate change, depending on the week), and since many of those things are understood in terms on planet earth's physics, are they really looking at the same planet earth?

From Moment to moment everything is constantly changing even on physics level, what to talk of cognitive level, please recall my example or mind-optic chiasm nerve- image understanding and the fact that light falling on retina  - was not real as it originated from different stars at different times.

This is the beauty of nature's complexity and value of scientists-ontologists-and - philosophers?

 

 

Probably, IMHO.  But their motivations, funding responses, belief systems and other human forces, certainly did effect what they chose to believe about planet earth. 

 

For each scientist, starting at birth, she had learned to sense the bare noise of infancy, then to identify patterns of things and actions, and then she learned her conceptual structure through discourse with other scientists, and with books, each holding different theories, possibly, about different situations. 

 

Can all those scientists view the same objective reality?

 

What is Objective Reality? we are trying to define it, I have limited physics and Indian philosophy background, by no means can I address process of visualization and learning or psychology and life sciences!

Regards

Ravi

 

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 3:16 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering Ontologies?

 

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
 

--

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)