Re: [ontolog-forum] More by and about Turing

["Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, Ravi, but I would say “formulation of reality” instead. I don’t want to sound like Moses here, since I am a seeker like everyone else here. You all have access to this stuff, or can.

 

Metaphysics is a body of knowledge, just like science, which should be at least partially understood and taken into account. Unlike religion and poetry, it is more amenable to logic, and in fact helps carve out what logic is. Which is not to say that religion and poetry are not important, they are just not as formalizable, as least as yet, maybe ever. Witness mathematics and science these days: a good portion of the human population does not place credence in them. We generally believe all kinds of crap.

 

Thanks,

Leo

 

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ravi Sharma
Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 4:13 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] More by and about Turing

 

Leo

Excellent, thanks.

I am thinking that individual's formation of reality depends on underlying reasoning that includes metaphysics and ontology?

Does not metaphysics  include assumptions to define reality expressively even though one may understand their own model of nature of physical universe?

Regards.

 

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Obrst, Leo J. <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

John,

Any human-specified "universal" (foundational) ontology has to follow reality (which exists independently of our ontological speculation, if you are a realist). This is why science and ontology are partners. Phlogiston theory flamed out as other science developed, but who knows: it may come back some day. Reality doesn't change; our descriptions/theories do. Theories are logical/mathematical descriptions of reality (though there may be other avenues at arriving at reality, if you tolerate religion and poetry, though these are probably less computable, at least currently), and as such, are or should be modifiable. One of our definitions of an ontology is that it is a logical theory about some portion of the world.

Metaphysics, from which philosophical ontology springs, is useful as a body of discriminating thought/reasoning, that helps you filter nonsense, provides guidance as you look at the world and the possible/probable things in it. This is why metaphysics is necessary. It helps you cut the crap. It too constantly evolves. Because it is tethered even farther from direct reality than is ontology, sometimes it's considered useless -- an erroneous view, to me. For one example: think of how many folks conflate ontology with semantics.

Thanks,
Leo

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

>Sent: Saturday, July 18, 2015 2:36 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] More by and about Turing
>
>On 7/17/2015 5:05 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>> Glad to see Turing was a nascent poet.
>
>Andrew Hodges, the author of that article about Turing, is
>a mathematical physicist.  Among the issues he addresses are
>Turing's comments about computability over the integers and
>the real numbers.  Those questions are significant for any
>computational ontology about space-time and the universe.
>
>Hodges notes that Turing was (and still is) ahead of his time
>in thinking about those problems.  That poem hints at them.
>
>Hodges' also cites a web site about the *amplituhedron* :
>https://www.quantamagazine.org/20130917-a-jewel-at-the-heart-of-quantum-
>physics/
>
>
>Implications for formal ontology:
>> Physicists have discovered a jewel-like geometric object that
>> dramatically simplifies calculations of particle interactions
>> and challenges the notion that space and time are fundamental
>> components of reality.
>>
>> "This is completely new and very much simpler than anything
>> that has been done before," said Andrew Hodges, a mathematical
>> physicist at Oxford University who has been following the work.
>>
>> "The degree of efficiency is mind-boggling," said Jacob Bourjaily,
>> a theoretical physicist at Harvard University. "You can easily do,
>> on paper, computations that were infeasible even with a computer."
>
>This is just one of many, many reasons why I'm highly skeptical
>about any proposals for a universal foundation ontology.  A new
>discovery can pop up at any time that completely revolutionizes
>and *obsoletes* any supposedly "ideal" foundation.
>
>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    (01)