The quantum nature of the real world is absolutely different conceptually
from the newtonian understanding which works well to calculate a jorney to
We don't understand the nature of the mouse brain but a chess computer wins
Court trials is just a textual games by clear rules where a judge is similar
to a game server, and if legal dusputes go online it would be a great
Elevator Pitch. (03)
Look at the future coming in http://www.icivics.org/games - it is waiting
for ontologists :) (04)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Ontology Summit 2011 discussion" <ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] [Making the Case] Elevator Pitch (06)
> On 2/1/2011 7:16 PM, Yuriy Milov wrote:
>> In case of a legal problems the "continuous infinity" is just a discrete
>> number (it is probably a "big number" for ordinary people but maybe not
>> big for computers).
> The number of laws and legal concepts is relatively small and discrete.
> The complexity comes from the world.
> Digital computers are discrete processors, and legal reasoning is
> one of the most complex kinds of NLP -- primarily because of the open
> ended nature of the subjects to which the law applies (i.e., anything
> and everything in the world). I believe that computers can help, but
> they're not going to replace lawyers and judges for a long, long time.
>> "Chess computer" has changed the "chess world", so why not a "law
>> (a "legal ontology") could change the "legal world"?
> A chess board has 32 discrete pieces on 64 squares. The number of
> possible combinations is large, but finite. That complexity
> is *insignificant* compared to the complexity of a continuum.
>> How does a real "human" lawyer resolve such unclear issues? The program
>> could do a similar job.
> That is a very good research problem. We are nowhere near to
> understanding how a 3-year-old child thinks. In fact, we don't
> even know how a mouse thinks.
>> Not a big deal. Even millions or billions variations can be quickly...
> Billions are trivial. We're faced with infinity.
>> What are the mystical human skills which allow human lawyers to do this
> Nobody knows. We still cannot simulate a mouse brain.
>> We have now a unique chance to invest our efforts in this future by
>> creating, say, a traffic law ontology as a case (or implement another
>> legal code) because (I suppose this based on a common sense) the laws of
>> Justice must be open for public (as the "open data") and formally
>> understandable (by resoners).
> That was the goal of the LILOG project, which was financed by IBM
> Germany, and which involved outstanding researchers from universities
> all over Germany (and with consultants from other places, such as me).
> The main lesson learned is that the problem is immensely more difficult
> than anyone had thought.
> Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
> Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2011/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2011
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (08)