On 2/18/2014 7:00 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J wrote:
> As I now understand it, in your model, the universe effectively
> consists of states and abstractions...
> The ontological commitments are clear. (01)
I agree. (02)
But the point I was trying to make is that Matthew's ontology
defines states in terms of a 4D universe. (03)
It is possible (and I believe preferable) to specify states and
processes as abstractions. There is no need to assume anything
about a physical time or space (4D, 3D, or whatever) in order to
define a Turing machine, a finite-state machine, or a Petri net. (04)
If you define states and processes abstractly, you can use them
to specify computations, data structures, etc., independently
of anything physical. (05)
If you do so, you can formalize communications among systems
in a purely abstract way -- independent of any assumptions
about any ontology of physics, space, time, matter, etc. (06)
John (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2014/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2014
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (08)
|